Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

English (Key Stage 3)

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last month on key stage 3 English.

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of the responses he has received regarding the key stage 3 English tests for 1993 have been critical of his proposals in their present form.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have received various letters on key stage 3 English. These raise a wide range of issues. I made an announcement about them on 19 February.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that today hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a further letter from teachers' representatives showing that 99 per cent. of teachers involved in the tests have described them as inadequately planned and prepared? In the face of growing opposition from teachers, parents and school governors, why does the Secretary of State persist in pushing forward with the tests? Is it not time that he postponed them?

Mr. Patten: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He cannot be aware that the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have all welcomed my announcement on 19 February. Characteristically, the two TUC-related trades unions—the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—continue with their threats. In the face of evidence of growing illiteracy, it is critically important that the tests go ahead this year and in future, so that we can deal with the problem, which I am afraid has been growing since the 1960s.

Mr. Jamieson: The Secretary of State will have received many representations from my constituency in Plymouth, from Devon and throughout the country regarding key stage 3 English tests. Last week, he will have received a letter from the Tory chair of a governing body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair?"] That is how he describes himself. He is the chair of Devonport high school for boys, a grammar school in Plymouth, and he strongly objects to the tests. Is

not the fact that the Secretary of State has had to defer publication of the test results this year an indication that the tests are flawed? In the light of that, will he make them optional this year, so that governors can make a proper choice about what is right for their children?

Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands a serious situation in the teaching of English. Recent independent evidence, made available and published two Fridays ago, showed that up to a third of young people leaving school aged 16 and going to further education colleges needed remedial help with understanding English because they had the reading age of 14-year-olds. That shows the urgency of the situation and the necessity of having a test at 14 as soon as possible, to identify those young men and women who need help with grappling with the English language—a problem which should have been sorted out long before they reached the age of 16.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people who have studied his statement on 19 February are grateful for it, but hope that he will keep in close touch with heads of English and others, and monitor closely the first unpublished tests?

Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome and am pleased to see him back in the Chamber after his recent ill health. What he says is right—we should monitor carefully the results of the tests this summer. They will be made known to parents and we shall publish the national picture, which I hope will not give me cause for concern, as I fear that it may—I hope that I am proved wrong. We shall also ask the inspectorate—the Office for Standards in Education—to examine the conduct of the tests. As each test is introduced each year—whether it is key stage English 3, the GCSE, or the A-level—it is preparation for the next year's tests, and each test is refined and developed. Teachers have been teaching children approaching the age of 14 this year key stage English 3 for three years and have had a lot of time for preparation. They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the tests.

Mr. Ward: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Can he explain why any competent teacher should have anything to fear from demonstrating that he has reached the standards expected of him?

Mr. Patten: I think that most teachers are highly professional and I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers. Sometimes, however, there is a bit of fear of the unknown and of something new. People do not like their performance to be exposed, professionals in particular. We in this place are exposed in our performance every clay. When something new comes along, sometimes people are rather frightened of it, but teachers of English should remember that, last year, when the tests for maths and science were first held, they were universally reported on by the inspectorate as having been successful and enjoyed by pupils. Truancy on that day went right down, because 98 per cent. of children turned up to do those tests, which was far more than are normally in school. Children will enjoy the new test and will benefit from it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Leaving aside the Secretary of State's new answer for truancy, which seems to rely on having tests every day, the Labour party welcomes his partial climbdown regarding the reporting of the results of the key


stage 3 test. The Opposition do not accept, however, that those tests are essential for identifying illiteracy, although we find it interesting that the Secretary of State referred to "growing illiteracy" after the Government have been in power for 14 years. Will the Secretary of State now follow through the logic of his own acknowledgment that the tests are flawed and postpone them for a year so that parents and teachers can have proper confidence in tests that have been properly trialled?

Mr. Patten: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady should sneer at what the Government, in a coalition of interested people, are doing to try to deal with the issue of truancy up and down the land. That shows the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Lady has displayed what I have always suspected about her; she does not support the concept of testing.
We have seen the shadow Home Secretary trying to slip into the clothes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which in itself is a difficult task. We see the modernisers of the Labour party trying to come aboard a Conservative agenda on law and order. I am afraid that no such Opposition modernisers have reached the Labour Front Bench. I greatly fear that if the NUT and the NAS/UWT in different parts of the country suggest boycotting the tests, we will find the hon. Lady, who is led by the nose by the producer lobby, backing those trade unions in any boycotts.

Further Education

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more 16-year-olds to attend colleges of further education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Government are committed to raising levels of participation and achievement. The proportion of 16-year-olds in education and training has now reached 87 per cent., which is an increase of 20 points since 1979. Our public expenditure plans already provide for 25 per cent. more students in further education over the next three years.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will be aware of the £6 million investment that has been approved by the Government for the brand new campus of the North-West Kent college at Lower Higham road in Chalk near Gravesend. May I rest assured that my hon. Friend will give maximum encouragement to my constituents aged 16 and older to take advantage of the excellent courses to be found in that college in electronics, engineering, catering and many other interesting subjects?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of Kent LEA's current provisional capital resources for the county, which are now being considered, taking account of competing claims, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand. An announcement on these matters will be made shortly.

Mr. Hardy: Although the House would welcome provision to encourage more 16-year-olds to stay on in education, does the Minister accept that the findings of the Audit Commission, which were published recently, justify the concern felt about a number of students already in further education, not least because of the high drop-out rate? Does he accept that something needs to be done

urgently to provide the motivation for young people who can see little point in pursuing further education when there is no prospect before them other than unemployment?

Mr. Boswell: I, too, have studied the recent Audit Commission report and welcome its examination of the subject. We clearly need to secure the best possible value for the existing and enhanced provision that we are making for further education. We need to have higher standards and less drop-out. The figures that the Audit Commission exposed revealed a number of qualifying factors on the drop-out rate, including those who move to other courses in the same institution or to other sorts of study or directly into employment. We need to ensure the best possible counselling for our young people before they go into further education courses, a reasonable range of courses, proper advice while they are on those courses and, above all, proper vocational paths, which we are securing through national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Wiltshire schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the (a) primary and (b) secondary sectors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): One primary school and three secondary schools in Wiltshire are already operating as self-governing grant-maintained state schools or have been approved for GM status. A further three primary and two secondary schools have voted in favour of applying for GM status and have applications in the pipeline.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that four schools to which my constituents send their children in the Swindon area have had ballots and negatived the proposal to go for grant-maintained status? Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at that outcome, which has been largely a result of general election-style canvassing by Labour supporters? Does he agree that the only people to lose out as a result are the children in those schools? If he does agree, what does he see as the way forward?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, but, frankly, not surprised, that my hon. Friend has cited an example from his constituency. Up and down the country there have been shady goings-on with regard to grant-maintained ballots, emanating from some politically motivated people in virtually every local education authority. However, in spite of that, so far the rate of approval of yes votes in grant-maintained ballots has been 80 per cent. and in February it was 82 per cent. We can take great encouragement from that. There are measures already in the Education Bill, which we shall be discussing on Report later today, designed to improve the balance provided to parents, by providing for modest sums to be made available to governing bodies for expenses incurred in promoting grant-maintained status and limiting local education authority expenditure on publications associated with ballots. That will redress the balance between authorities and governing bodies. We believe that those and other measures in the Bill will correct the imbalance that has existed until now and ensure that parents come forward with informed and constructive views.

Graduate Employment

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss graduate employment.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time to discuss general higher education issues. He has not received a specific request to discuss graduate employment.

Mr. Sheerman: Do not the ghastly numbers of unemployed young talent show that a tremendous opportunity for our country has been missed? In a week when President Clinton has introduced a bold and imaginative new initiative for young people, is it not about time that the Government had the imagination to use the talents of young people to do something about the urgent social and industrial problems of our country?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgets that we have already rapidly expanded the number of students in higher education at the expense of the taxpayer. I would not suggest to the House that graduate employment should be immune to the recession. It is important that we build on the existing high participation rates in higher education and the growing contribution and involvement of young people in further education. That is the best possible thing that those young people can do if there are employment difficulties. I strongly advise them to get the skills that they require, ready for when the upturn comes.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a period of world recession, anyone who is fortunate enough to achieve education in the higher sphere—particularly in a university—should consider carefully and seriously the discipline that they expect to study, if they are to look forward to the opportunities that will arise when the world comes out of recession?

Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is on a good point. It is important that those at university should make the best possible use of their time there. There is no better way of ensuring that this country comes out of recession at the head of the line than having the highest possible ratio of skills in our population.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that work and education are the foundation of human well-being and that the willingness of people to be educated and trained and to work is a nation's greatest asset? Given that undergraduates are, by definition, the best and most expensively educated human assets that this country has, does the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) indicate that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues has taken a single initiative in discussing the issue of graduate unemployment?

Mr. Boswell: The Department primarily responsible for employment matters is the Department of Employment. The original question asked specifically when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. As and when it makes such a request, I shall respond. I have shown the House that we have increased the involvement of our younger people in higher and further education. We

plan to continue doing that and to have the best-educated and best-skilled work force in employment, to exploit in future the competitive advantage that skills can bring to industry.

Further Education

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the drop-out rate of students on full-time courses after the age of 16 years.

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the proportion of students in full-time education post-16 who are failing to complete their course of studies.

Mr. Patten: I am very concerned by the recent report from the Audit Commission and the Office for Standards in Education, which identified unacceptably high drop-out rates among 16 to 19-year-olds. Schools and colleges should tackle that urgently. Our policies of improving the information and qualifications available to young people will help them make better choices and strengthen their motivation to succeed. We will publish information about vocational examination results of schools and colleges to encourage that.

Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that students sometimes experience great difficulty in transferring to not only sixth forms but universities? As someone who lasted only six months at university, I understand those difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department will carefully examine the way in which universities and sixth-form colleges approach that aspect? I pay tribute to Bournemouth university and to Weymouth sixth-form college for the way in which they help students to select relevant courses and to make a successful transition. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing college and university drop-out rates, so that students—such as my own four children, who are all receiving a state education—will be able to make sensible decisions on their choice of university education?

Mr. Patten: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) in paying tribute to the university and sixth-form college in his constituency, both of which are excellent. I agree also that the drop-out rate should cause us concern. I believe that it is partly due to young people making the wrong career choice—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred earlier—and partly to young people not receiving closer supervision at school and closer instruction at college. That is one reason why we shall make in the next three years a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering further education colleges. As young people make decisions about which career path to follow in vocational or academic education, it is critically important that they have the information that they need. I said in my original answer that we will publish the results of vocational examinations. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is on to something good, and perhaps we should publish drop-out rates as well. They might tell us something about not only young people but colleges.

Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the House agrees that the present drop-out rate of one in three among students over


16 is unacceptable, as the Secretary of State said. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government must take a major share of the responsibility for that? It is not just a question involving colleges and universities—though they have a role. The Government's responsibility is in respect of poverty. Do the Government realise that until they reverse their mistaken decision to freeze the student grant and to enable students to have an adequate standard of living, drop-outs will continue at an unacceptably high level?

Mr. Patten: It is not for me to say whether the hon. Gentleman's question relates directly to the question on the Order Paper. I can say, however, that there is no evidence of any fall in the number of people—from all social and economic backgrounds—who enter further and higher education.
The hon. Gentleman could usefully talk to councils such as—to name but a few—Knowsley, Derbyshire, Camden, Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham, where the hon. Gentleman was in a previous incarnation. Those councils have a lamentable record, keeping students waiting for mandatory grants that they should have received many weeks ago.

Mr. Forman: Notwithstanding the difficulties identified in this and earlier questions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's record, and the prospects for further education, are exemplary? It is important that the expansion mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, enables us to tackle more effectively both the problems of the juvenile unemployed and some of the law-and-order problems to which our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will refer in his statement later this afternoon.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is, in large part, the architect of the recent expansion in further education—480 colleges are involved and there will be one in or near the constituency of every hon. Member in the House—and I pay tribute to him for that.
Over the past 14 years, Conservative Governments have introduced mass education for all—not only for those under 16, but for people aged up to 18 or 19. I agree with my hon. Friend that that expansion is a great tribute to the Government. We have now achieved the staying-on levels of many of our west European counterparts, and I believe that that will affect not only the country's education, but its social stability—including the crime rate, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Madam Speaker: Order. These answers are much too long.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Audit Commission has revealed that 150,000 young people are leaving full-time courses without the qualifications for which those courses were designed. Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 14 years of Conservative government, that is a scandal? Does he accept that it is not the fault of the schools and colleges that he would seek to blame, but the Government's fault? Does he also accept that the Government's mindless view that the way in which to resolve the unemployment problem for young people is simply to get them into the colleges—again, without any recognition of the importance of quality and qualifications—gives neither the students nor the country any hope, or anything else?
The Secretary of State says—

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are proceeding far too slowly. We want brisker questions, and I certainly want brisker answers.

Mr. Lloyd: I shall put my question very simply. After 14 years, what do the Government now intend to do about the problem?

Mr. Patten: We intend to do what I have been saying in my "much too long" answers. My replies to the hon. Gentleman's first two questions are, respectively, no and no.

Madam Speaker: That is the sort of answer that I like.

School Day

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what flexibility he has given to schools on the length of the school day.

Mr. Patten: I shall try to show some improvement, Madam Speaker.
Governors have a great deal of flexibility. I am always pleased to hear when that is being used imaginatively, as I understand may be the case in Battersea technology college in my hon. Friend's constituency and as is certainly the case in the 15 excellent city technology colleges that we already have. The length of the school day should be limited only by the capacity of children to learn.

Mr. Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is not flexibility one of the great, outstanding freedoms for our schools? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to that freedom is flexibility in regard to pay, enabling existing teachers to be paid more for the extra hours that they work and removing the need to recruit part-time extra teachers? A quick yes and yes to that question will do nicely.

Mr. Patten: In shorthand, maybe and maybe. If I may, however, I shall answer in slightly longer hand.
I am very pleased at the 30 per cent. increase in teachers' salaries over the past three years, which compares with a 16 per cent. increase across the economy as a whole. I should like teachers to be better paid and I should like the teaching profession to be even more respected. There will, however, be a twofold price for that over the years: first, the introduction of performance-related pay and, secondly, much greater flexibility in regard to hours.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In any consideration of the flexibility of the school day, will the Secretary of State issue guidance to schools on the better community use of their facilities? Would not a better way to tackle problems such as truancy be to make the school a real part of the community, instead of its being hived off in an opt-out corner and the rest of the community feeling divorced from the people using the school?

Mr. Patten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Not only the concept but the actuality of community schools and colleges, of which there are many, should be applauded. The hon. Gentleman is right and we should do all that we can.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have so far applied for grant-maintained status; what that is as a percentage of the total number of secondary schools in England; and in which local education authorities no grant-maintained schools have so far emerged.

Mr. Patten: I shall answer these questions as quickly as possible.
To date, 644 schools have published proposals for grant-maintained status as self-governing state schools. Four hundred and thirty one of those applications have been approved and 156 are currently under consideration. A further 68 schools have voted yes in parental ballots, but have not yet published proposals. About 13 per cent. of maintained secondary schools in England have applied for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Field: With a record like that, we are going to give my right hon. Friend an E for effort this term. Does he appreciate that the opportunity provided by grant-maintained status has shifted the balance of power so that school governors who are not politically correct are no longer sacked, as happened on the Isle of Wight under the Liberal Democrat-controlled education authority, has put an end to the councillor busybody and has given power back to the principals and parents of schools throughout the United Kingdom and the Isle of Wight?

Mr. Patten: We all know about the shameful and undemocratic practices of the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight and I wholly condemn them. I believe that power is being redistributed in schools from the centre or hub of the wheel to the rim. Across the country, more parents and governors are taking control of their schools not only through grant-maintained status but through local management of schools which, four or five years ago, the Labour party so opposed.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the figures that he has just given underline the growing importance and success of the grant-maintained schools sector? Will he therefore disregard the ill-informed and ill-considered advice from certain members of the Opposition who would abolish grant-maintained schools? Will he also reflect on the number of children now being educated in the grant-maintained school sector?

Mr. Patten: The number of children in England being educated in self-governing state schools, which is what grant-maintained schools are, is 236,000. There are an awful lot of committed parents, teachers and governors and their numbers will be growing in the next year or so. Unfortunately, they know, because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has made it clear, that there is a Labour commitment to abolish grant-maintained schools. I wonder what the modernisers in the Labour party think about that.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree with the widespread concern that has been expressed about grant maintained status being granted in the primary sector, where the Government are giving no guarantees to

protect funding for nursery education and, incidentally, no protection where they insist on the rationalisation of schools to remove surplus places?

Mr. Patten: The position of primary schools is clear. If they have a nursery class or stream when they become grant maintained, that is their status when the Secretary of State gives his permission for the school to become grant maintained. If not, they have to come to the Secretary of State and publish an application for a change of character.
It is good to know of the considerable interest among primary schools not only in individually becoming grant-maintained but in making use of the opportunities given in the Education Bill, which we shall be discussing later today on the Floor of the House, for them to help each other in a grant-maintained cluster.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State believe that schools applying for grant-maintained status are exercising what he falsely believes to be parental choice and democracy? If so, is he willing to extend those principles further and allow future generations of parents to exercise parental choice in voting back out of grant-maintained status into LEA control, or is his belief in democracy really a sham and does he believe in it only when it supports Tory party dogma?

Mr. Patten: For a Liberal, the hon. Gentleman is showing appalling contempt for the rule of the ballot box because in eight out of 10 ballots for grant-maintained schools, the vote is an overwhelming yes and, generally speaking, between 60 and 70 per cent. of parents entitled to vote turn out to vote—far more than in a local government election. The hon. Gentleman is pouring contempt and scorn on the parents who voted in favour of the two grant-maintained schools in Bath which he has done nothing but attack since he has been a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent poll organised by the BBC on Baverstock school in Birmingham found that although, at the time it opted out, 75 per cent. of parents voted in favour, two years later, 99 per cent. of those people eligible to vote were in favour of the opting out? Does not that show how popular grant-maintained status becomes over a period of time and how idiotic it is for the Opposition to threaten to abolish grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC broadcast the results of such a poll to which I listened carefully, as I always do. It shows increasing support for Baverstock school as a grant-maintained school. It is one of the biggest schools in the country with, I think, more than 2,000 pupils. After two years' experience, almost every parent of a child at that school has said that they wish it to remain grant maintained and welcome the fact that it has become a successful beacon in Birmingham's educational landscape.

Expenditure Per Pupil

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on comparative levels of expenditure per pupil in individual local authorities.

Mr. Forth: Education standard spending assessments allow for variations in the costs that authorities in different parts of the country incur in providing a common standard of service. Differences in levels of actual expenditure per pupil depend, however, on spending decisions taken by local education authorities.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will be aware that there is a school of thought that people born in Yorkshire are naturally more intelligent than the rest of the nation. Do the Government subscribe to that school of thought, or are there other reasons why pupils in Wakefield are allowed £1,000 a year less expenditure per head than pupils in Conservative Wandsworth?

Mr. Forth: I might be tempted to subscribe to the view that the further north one is born the more intelligent one is, but I will leave that to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman must not get into the business of trying to make invidious but specious comparisons about expenditure per pupil across the country, for a number of reasons. In several authorities expenditure per pupil is less than in his own; his is 15th off the bottom of that particular league table, if he wishes to look at it in that way. More particularly, there is no proven relation whatever between expenditure per pupil and quality of education. Many excellent local education authorities have amply demonstrated that it is the quality and outputs that count, not the money that is shoved in at the other end.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that point from the evidence of going round the excellent schools in Surrey and particularly in Esher, where teachers are making use of the local management budget and getting tremendous output, very high-quality results and low levels of truancy? That is what teaching is all about: the commitment of the teachers and the headmasters in the schools.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is typical that from the Government side of the House we have an acknowledgement of how quality of education comes about, whereas from the Opposition we simply have an obsession with money and expenditure. That sums up as well as anything could the different attitude to education of the two sides of the House.

Universities (Funding)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the funding of universities.

Mr. Boswell: We regularly receive representations about a range of higher education matters, including funding.

Mr. Griffiths: Why is not the Secretary of State intervening to stop institutions such as Edinburgh university and Royal Holloway and Bedford New college selling priceless art treasures by artists such as Turner and Gainsborough to balance their books? Will the Secretary of State intervene to stop universities selling off the family silver?

Mr. Boswell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's sense of geography. He will know that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will shortly take over

responsibility for—[Interruption.] One at a time, please. The Universities Funding Council is responsible now; the hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. He will also know that there is a Charity Commission and an export licensing procedure under which such matters will be considered. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the real resources made available to the university sector are at record levels. The problems of particular institutions need to be addressed by those institutions in connection with the relevant funding councils.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that our system of student support is more generous than that in any other country in the western world? Will he further confirm that the reaction to student loans has been for more people to apply to go to university, not fewer, as the Opposition forecast?

Mr. Boswell: Not only is the provision for student support one of the most generous, if not the most generous, in the western world, but support for the university sector generally through the taxpayer, running at £4 billion a year, is extremely generous and contributes to excellent results.

Pupil-teacher Ratios

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about pupil-teacher ratios in all schools and separately in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Forth: As at January 1992 the overall pupil-teacher ratio in England stood at 17·44:1, compared with 18·94:1 in 1979. The within school pupil-teacher ratios were 22·21:1 for primary schools and 15·83:1 for secondary schools.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that throughout the country many teachers have lost their jobs because of the funding arrangements? In my constituency, for example, Gilesgate primary school has lost three teachers over the past three years, which has had a detrimental effect on the pupil-teacher ratio. When will the Government accept that more resources are needed so that schools can pay their teachers and give children an equal opportunity in education?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman seems to resent the fact that through local management of schools and grant-maintained status we are now giving the responsibility for staffing and the management of schools to governors and heads. They are the people in the best position to make arrangements for teaching in schools and classrooms and it is to them that we entrust that responsibility, which they are discharging admirably.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which local education authorities can improve pupil-teacher ratios is to dismantle the expensive administration of school meals and devolve the arrangements to parents? Does he recall that my local authority employed more than 170 additional teachers by dispensing with that apparatus?

Mr. Forth: In the matter of meals I defer to my hon. Friend, who is the House's expert. He has made an important point—the more opportunities that those who are responsible for managing schools, such as governors,


heads and staff, take to alter the arrangements so as to deliver the best quality of education and the maximum expenditure in the classroom, the better the quality of education will be. We want to see the most flexible arrangements and the greatest possible variety of arrangements in schools throughout the country, as befits local requirements.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister believe that class sizes matter in terms of the quality of education delivered to our children?

Mr. Forth: I do not believe that there is any proven connection between class sizes and quality of education.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an interesting fact that about 14 years ago the discussions were about reducing the size of classes that still contained more than 40 pupils, whereas today the discussion is about removing the remaining classes with more than 30 pupils? Is not that a measure of the progress that has been made under the Government in improving teacher-pupil ratios?

Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The vast bulk of our children are educated in classes of fewer than 30. The average class size is well under 30. It would be wrong to focus exclusively and entirely on that. It may be a factor, but it is by no means the definitive factor.

Physical Education

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra support will be made available to schools to assist with the implementation of physical education in the national curriculum.

Mr. Forth: In 1993–94, the grants for education support and training programme will support £180 million of national curriculum-related activity, including £85 million of expenditure for national curriculum books, equipment and training. It will be for schools to decide exactly how that money is spent.

Ms. Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the specific difficulties of physical education, especially in our inner city schools? Does he realise that in key stage 1 the assessment will require more than 900 individual tests which must be carried out by a teacher? Does he agree that more resources must be targeted for physical education, or that basic skill will not be learnt by children in primary schools?

Mr. Forth: Of course, I appreciate the points that the hon. Lady has made, but, with the exception of mathematics and science teachers in primary schools, we have not so far been persuaded that to ring fence expenditure to specific curriculum items is the correct way to go. Therefore, for physical education, as for other subjects in the curriculum, we believe that it is right for local decisions to be made on the use, distribution and prioritisation of the resources that we have given to education. We believe that those resources are more than adequate to carry out the task.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.

Mr. John Smith: In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?

The Prime Minister: Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways—unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.

Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?

The Prime Minister: As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.

Mr. John Smith: Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?

The Prime Minister: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizens charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.

Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nigel Jones: May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea's long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent "Small Business Bulletin" from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news— [Interruption] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he

next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business-friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live; they do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?

The Prime Minister: All Governments intend to keep their election promises.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Paice: Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?

The Prime Minister: Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cohn Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.

Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Soley: Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?

The Prime Minister: Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.

Dr. Liam Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.

Miss Lestor: Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives—four-year-olds—going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.

Juvenile Offending

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans for strengthening our response to the problem of juvenile crime.
A comparatively small number of school-age children are responsible for a high proportion of crime, particularly burglary and car crime, in many parts of the country. I spoke last autumn of my concern about the apparent lack of powers for the courts to deal with the worst of these offenders, and I have since repeatedly made it clear that I am preparing proposals to close what I perceive to be a gap in the law. I believe that it is not in the interests of school-age children that they should be left at large in the community if they are out of control, playing truant from school and repeatedly committing criminal acts against the general public.
The Government are determined to continue to strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders. We must also take other mesures to tackle the problem on a broader front.
The courts already have some powers to sentence juvenile offenders to custody, subject to their age and the offence of which they have been convicted. They also have powers to order them to be supervised in the community, with a wide range of additional requirements, some of which involve extensive restrictions on their liberty. Those powers are necessary and sensible for the great majority of juvenile offenders, but I have decided that they are insufficient to deal effectively with that comparatively small group of very persistent juvenile offenders whose repeated offending makes them a menace to the community.
The courts will be provided with a new sentence, which for the present I am calling a secure training order. The order will be available for 12 to 15-year-olds who have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and have proved unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of supervision in the community while on remand or under sentence. A court would be empowered to impose such a sentence only when it was satisfied that such an order was necessary to protect the public from further offending by that juvenile and when a place in a suitable facility was available. Before making an order, the court would be required to take account of a pre-sentence report. The order might last for up to two years.
The challenge for the new secure training centres will be to provide high standards of care and discipline and opportunities for the juveniles in their care to develop as individuals. Regimes in the new training centres will embrace education and training provided in ways that tackle the individual's offending behaviour. After release from the secure training centre, the order will ensure that the juvenile remains under close supervision unless and until his behaviour has altered and those responsible can be confident that he is no longer a threat to society.
It is absolutely imperative that the supervision in the community be rigorous, consistent and firmly delivered. For those persistent offenders discharged from the new training centres, supervision in the community must build on the work done inside the centres themselves.
National standards are required in this area. My Department and the Department of Health, together with

the Welsh Office, last year jointly issued "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community". These standards will need to be supplemented to ensure the effective post-release supervision of 12 to 15-year-olds. Work on this will proceed as a matter of urgency.
The secure training orders will be different from anything that has ever been provided before. I envisage that the centres will be provided through agreements with suitable organisations. They may come from the public, voluntary or private sectors, provided that they can demonstrate the ability to meet the standards we shall be setting and to give value for money. Central Government will act as the purchaser of this provision.
To enable the private and voluntary sectors to provide secure accommodation, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of States for Health and for Wales will amend the present regulations under the Children Act 1989.
The care and social work activities of the centres will be inspected by the social services inspectorate, and their educational provision by inspectors of education.
The Government will also be considering whether the existing powers of courts in sentencing juvenile offenders should, in some cases, include a power to require placement in secure accommodation.
The Government will bring forward legislative proposals to give the courts new powers at the first opportunity.
In working up detailed plans to implement our proposals, we will be having discussions with a wide range of agencies and institutions which may be capable of providing the new centres. Provision will be made for the cost of the new arrangements in the course of the public expenditure planning exercise which is now under way.
In recent years, local authority social services, the probation service and many voluntary organisations have shown that sensible and constructive schemes for supervising young offenders in the community can be successful in preventing crime and diverting young people from the penal system. It is of course important that that policy should continue, and that parents should be involved in the responsibility for the upbringing and behaviour of their children. The existing policy will be strengthened by the measures which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health will also take in their respective fields.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be reminding social services that their responsibilities for young people who offend, and those on the brink of offending, should stress control as well as care. There should be no soft options.
My right hon. Friend will shortly issue guidance on the control regimes in secure and other forms of children's residential accommodation. That guidance will take account of the lessons learned in protecting children from abuse, such as in the pindown regime. It will also address the serious concern that staff must be able to exercise proper authority over the children in children's homes. They need sanctions if children misbehave. They should also have the necessary powers to prevent children who are detained by order of the courts from running away.
My right hon. Friend will also ensure that social services departments take a consistent approach towards the control of juvenile offenders. There must be a joint approach with the education authorities, the police and probation service and other agencies. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Education will also be taking measures in support of our general strategy for tackling the problems of juvenile offenders.
Schools must prove effective in instilling discipline through adherence to civilised values and by encouraging and supporting respect for other people and their property. From the earliest possible age, schools, supported by parents, must sharply discourage behaviour which may lead to a life of crime. There is no longer any place in our schools for the discredited philosophy of allowing children to develop in their own way, regardless of right or wrong. Schools must promulgate the values we as a society want to pass on to the next generation.
The national curriculum requires schools to prepare all pupils
for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
The newly independent office for standards in education will be introducing a much more rigorous inspection regime, which will include explicit reporting on behaviour and discipline in schools and on how the school functions.
Action must also he taken to ensure that pupils do attend school. My right hon. Friend now requires schools to keep proper records of truancy. Parents have to be told when their children do not turn up. From next autumn, school performance tables will have to show how well they are doing in making truancy a problem of the past.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why not start here?

Mr. Clarke: I wish some people would play truant more often.
The attack on truancy must come from the Government and from parents. The Government have established a £10 million programme to help schools in 74 authorities to get to grips with the problem. Parents must get their children to school on time and make it clear that they must stay there.
Disruptive pupils must be dealt with more effectively. Significant numbers of children behave so disruptively that schools have had to exclude them. So often, of course, disruptive behaviour, if left unchecked, leads on to offending.
I am able to announce today that, following extensive consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education proposes to bring proposals before Parliament to place local education authorities under a new statutory duty. They will be required to develop comprehensive plans to educate pupils who are not attending school. The aim will be to provide courses tailored to the needs of the individual to prepare excluded pupils for re-entry into school.
I do not lightly commend to this House proposals which, in part, have the serious effect of depriving children of their liberty and removing them from their families. The Government, as I have shown, will continue to support proved and effective ways of dealing with children of this age without resort to custody in all cases where non-custodial measures have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Many first offenders will continue to receive a formal caution from the police, but we will shortly be strengthening our guidance to the police about the criteria for cautioning, including a warning about excessive and repeated use of cautioning in cases where it will plainly be ineffective.
The range of measures I have outlined today is designed to deal more effectively with juveniles on the fringes of criminality, as well as the hard-core offenders who have shown that they cannot or will not respond constructively to supervision in the community. These measures are urgently needed to deal with this problem, and I am confident that the House will support them.

Mr. Tony Blair: We welcome at least the recognition that we have been pressing upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman for months that, after 14 years, it is time that the Government took responsibility for the situation. Does he understand that the protection that we require is not just against the menace of persistent juvenile offences, but against all types of criminal offences, which have more than doubled under this Government in the past 14 years?
Coming to the central proposal, we agree that the stress should be on care and education and training in secure accommodation. The Secretary of State believes that that accommodation is best provided in entirely new institutions. We believe that it is best provided by building on the secure accommodation already available at the local level. I will put our case for this and ask him to answer three specific points.
First, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under his proposals not one of these places will be in operation until 1995 or 1996 at the earliest? I remind the House that two years ago a Home Office Minister promised 65 extra places of secure accommodation, and not one has yet been built. We have learnt today—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm this—that not one has even had the capital funding for it accepted. Does he not understand that it is now that people require action against the rising tide of crime?
Secondly, on the issue of standards, I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Home Office has just filed evidence with the Home Affairs Select Committee to the effect that local secure accommodation is of a higher standard and leads to less reoffending than is the case with young offenders' institutions. Does he or does he not accept that?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State listen to the universal advice that it is far preferable to isolate young offenders from their peer group and work with them to lead them to face their responsibilities than to put them in the company of 40 or 50 other persistent young offenders? What we need, in other words, is schools of responsibility, not colleges of crime.
I believe that many people will be surprised at the very narrow nature of the statement. Where, for example, is the action on support and help to make cautioning more effective, as the Association of Chief Police Officers has asked? Where is the review of section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is causing confusion in our courts? Where is the guarantee that early intervention on young offenders, which has been proved to work, will be available in all parts of the country, because it is not available at the moment? Given that there is a conviction or caution for only one in 25 crimes, where is the national strategy for crime prevention that is absolutely essential? Above all, where is the acceptance that we do not have to choose —as the Prime Minister says—between condemning crime and understanding it, but that we should both condemn crime and try to understand its underlying causes?
Is not part of that understanding stopping other Government Departments from doing the very things that undermine the fight against crime? Will the Home Secretary today commit the Government to reversing the policies which have resulted in 75 per cent. of youth services facing cuts this year; which have destroyed more than 100,000 training places for the young and unemployed; which have shut drug projects and closed residential homes for young people; and which have reduced the number of education welfare officers dealing with truancy?
On the Secretary of State's extraordinary statement about truancy, can he explain why he has come forward with the proposals now when the Elton report recommended more than three years ago that the number of education welfare officers should be increased to one for every 2,500 pupils? Can he confirm, in consultation with his colleague if necessary, that today there is only one to every 6,000 as a result of the cuts?
If we are to understand the problems, would not it be sensible to understand the effect of withdrawing benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds and driving them on to the streets? Does he therefore agree categorically that of course there is never any excuse for crime and that those who commit crimes must face justice, but that if children grow up in a world without hope or opportunity, with poor education or housing, with no prospect of work or training, with no stake in the society that demands respect from them, is it not common sense that crime is more likely to breed in such conditions?
Will the Home Secretary understand that we require not a belated response to headlines that damage the Government, but a coherent and thought-out policy to tackle crime and its causes, as they threaten the nation, so that people in our communities can live in their homes and walk the streets of our country free from fear and the threat of crime as they used to be able to do?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not join in too many exchanges about who has been thinking about the problem for months. The Government can demonstrate that not only have we been speaking about it for months, but that three Departments of State have prepared today's proposals, which cover a range of problems—persistent juvenile offenders, absence from school and the regime that needs to be applied by social services departments which have children in their care.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) thinks that we are moving closer together on such matters, the proof will come when we witness his reaction to our solid proposals. He began by suggesting that we should build on the secure accommodation that we already have, and that is a good starting point. Local authorities can provide secure accommodation for children as long as they act within the criteria of the Children Act 1989 and can comply with our proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Opposition were somewhat resistant to both Acts.
For philosophical reasons, most local authorities are reluctant to provide secure accommodation for juveniles and I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield and his team will use their influence to get rid of that reluctance. I hope that he will welcome the fact that when courts impose supervision orders, as they now do, the

Government propose to go beyond the Criminal Justice Act to enable the courts to make it a condition that the person placed under supervision should be held in secure accommodation by a local authority, which will have to provide such accommodation if it does not already have it.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield says that we committed ourselves to 65 specific places. He probably knows that we did so for a particular reason—to replace the remanding to gaol of 15 to 16-year-olds. We have made the capital money available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been discussing it with local authorities and it has been difficult to persuade them to take the money for providing secure accommodation. [Interruption.] I am glad that some sinners have come home to repent; I am glad that we are making progress. My right hon. Friend is well on course to providing those places by the target date of 1995. I hope that the Opposition will urge reluctant Labour authorities to work with us and take the capital money that we now have available.
Those two issues have led to the continued uncertainty of the hon. Member for Sedgefield on two points. I hope that we can still persuade him to follow up his recent rhetoric with support for our proposals. First, the hon. Gentleman will not say whether the courts should have the power to impose sentences on persistent juvenile offenders which require them to be sent to secure accommodation. For so long as the courts lack that power, they lack the ability to protect the public.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman cannot decide whether he is in favour of the institutions of the kind that I have described. One moment he welcomes them, saying that we have been laggardly, the next minute he compares them with young offenders' institutions, which deal with older and more hardened delinquents. He has also suggested that we should not put all the offenders together because that would create a university of crime. There is a gap in the law, however, because currently the courts do not have adequate powers to deal with the persistent juvenile offender. The institutions do not exist to which those people can be sent to be looked after better, educated and trained and where their offending behaviour can be tackled. The message in the hon. Gentleman's speeches is obscure, and I am not sure whether he has taken on those points.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to truancy. We have been acting on that for some time, going on from the recommendations in the Elton report. Some authorities take the problem more seriously than others. We are now requiring that schools should produce, for the first time, school-by-school figures on truancy levels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is about to produce performance tables that will compare school by school, a concept resisted bitterly by the Labour party when we proposed it. I have just announced a package of measures, including a £10 million programme, to tackle truancy, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is fully prepared to tackle truancy in our schools.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield also referred to crime prevention programmes, but their scope goes well beyond juvenile offenders. We have developed a system to encourage crime prevention that includes the safer-city project, the neighbourhood watch scheme, and other crime prevention programmes such as car crime prevention year, which ran in 1992, and other operational activities


undertaken by the police to reduce burglary and car theft in target areas. We will continue to launch such programmes.
It is right to comment on those problems in a society that provides a breeding ground for crime. It is also right to comment on the conditions in some of our cities, which the Government have been tackling for many years. Our proposals for city challenge and the inner-city task force are far in advance of anything that the Opposition have suggested. However, those projects cannot be used as an alternative to tackling crime. If we are agreed on the rhetoric and we are close to agreeing on the analysis of the problem, the Opposition should recognise that the Government have brought forward a solid body of proposals. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has no proposals of his own. He cannot yet make up his mind whether he will support that which we have put forward, but I am sure that the House will.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does the: Home Secretary accept that his proposals today to deal with persistent offenders between the ages of 12 and 15 and the other comprehensive measures that he has introduced will be widely welcomed in the country? Does he also accept that, if a boy is a persistent offender by the age of 12, his slide into delinquency will probably have happened between the ages of 5 and 10, which is below the age of criminal responsibility?
As a former Education Secretary, does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that powers exist in the Education Acts to ensure that disruptive and emotionally disturbed children are sent to special schools and taken out of mainstream education? Will he ensure that the supply and quality of those schools is improved?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has measures to tackle truancy and disruptive pupils of every age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is right to say that powers already exist to make provision for particularly disruptive pupils, even of a very young age. We will certainly remind local authorities, education authorities and school governing bodies of those powers. My right hon. Friend also says that there are people out in 1 he field with considerable expertise and skill in dealing with difficult, disturbed and disruptive children. We need to draw on such expertise to provide facilities for older children.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, in proposing the new secure training centres for the young, he is adding to a range of options that is too limited for the magistrates and those with sentencing responsibilities? By his own admission, he is dealing with a minor part of the problem of young offending, which has become clearer and clearer as we have had 14 years of Conservative administration and a whirligig of Home Secretaries revolving their particular nostrums to tackle the problem. Does the Home Secretary also accept that, at a time when a royal commission is sitting on the criminal justice system, it would be appropriate to look at the need to establish a separate youth justice system with courts—perhaps parallel to the system in Scotland—gearing their responses to young offending in a more apt way?

Mr. Clarke: The Government have introduced youth courts. Throughout their period of office they have progressively introduced a range of powers and disposals for the courts that are effective for the vast majority of juvenile offenders. Only recently, when we took the Criminal Justice Act 1991 through the House, we gave magistrates more powers than they had previously enjoyed to impose conditions on the supervision orders that they could make for juvenile offenders. Today, I have announced that we are considering giving magistrates additional powers to make stronger conditions on the supervision orders to require that the local authority supervises the child in secure accommodation. We shall also provide an entirely new disposal for the hard co re of persistent offenders for whom there are currently no adequate provisions.
I do not believe that our proposals are an ad hoc search for solutions. They constitute a well-balanced package of measures to give the youth courts, which the Government have established, the range of powers which they need and which they tell us they require.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that experienced junior, and even infant, teachers are quite capable of saying at a very early age which children are liable to grow up to be criminals? Does he agree that it is not just a matter of truancy? Schools need to return to the understanding that it is essential to discipline a child to live peaceably in a disciplined world. The constant efforts of the Labour party to allow teachers fewer and fewer disciplinary powers are dangerous.

Mr. Clarke: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. As far as it was relevant to do so, I mentioned in my statement the need for schools to accept responsibility for maintaining a properly disciplined and structured atmosphere in which to teach the national curriculum and also introduce children to the values that they need in a society such as ours. The direction of our education reforms underlines that need. We are steadily restoring a more structured atmosphere in our schools and becoming clearer about what schools should be teaching. The national curriculum includes the references that I made to general teaching of the standards required for life in a civilised society. The fact that we are giving more power to parents to influence what goes on in schools will also underline our policy.
We are addressing precisely the problems about which my hon. Friend was worried. I agree that it is extremely important to consider the problem as a whole. The initial causes of criminality are just as important as the disposals that the court can make in relation to the hard-core offenders with whom we have failed.

Mr. Stephen Byers: Does the Home Secretary recognise that his statement addresses only one small part of the overall problem? Does he accept that there need to be changes to the criminal justice system to make it far more effective, which it clearly is not at present? In particular, will he take urgent action to repeal section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 so that previous convictions can be taken into account when an offender is being sentenced? After 14 years of Conservative Government and a crisis of confidence, why will not the main proposals in his statement take effect for another two to three years?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It came into effect only last October, so we have barely five months' experience of its operation. That legislation was taken through Parliament at the request of the courts and was supported by both sides of the House. It makes provision for the previous convictions of offenders to be taken into account in certain circumstances. There is now widespread dissatisfaction with the 1991 Act, and I am quite prepared to re-examine it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, after only five months' experience of a provision that I think every right hon. and hon. Member supported only 12 months ago, we need a little time to make sure that everyone has that Act's provisions working as they were intended to work before embarking on any possible changes.

Mr. Michael Shersby: As a secure training order will be made only after a juvenile has been convicted of three imprisonable offences, and as my right hon. and learned Friend is to strengthen the police cautioning criteria, will he take account of the widespread disillusionment among the magistracy, Members of Parliament and everybody in public life with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and allow courts to be told about similar offences?
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how it is proposed that
Schools must prove effective in instilling discipline through adherence to civilised values"?
Do the Government propose to bring back corporal punishment?

Mr. Clarke: I have already described the range of offences that we will be covering, and they do not relate only to persistent juvenile offenders. We will strengthen the guidance on cautioning to make sure that persistent use of cautioning is not resorted to where it is plainly ineffective. The police can then take children before the youth court, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 enables for the first time the parents of children to be brought before the court and to be bound over to be responsible for the good behaviour of their children. In certain circumstances, the parents can be required to pay their children's fines. Supervision orders are available, which are the next appropriate step with a juvenile who is going out of control.
The 1991 Act extended the range of conditions that justices can impose on supervision orders. We are now proposing to go a step further and are considering giving justices the power to make a supervision order subject to a condition that the child lives in secure accommodation. On top of that, we are introducing a new power to allow a sentence to be imposed on persistent offenders, sending them, under a secure training order, to one of the new secure training centres. There is no need for the police and magistrates to be disillusioned. The 1991 Act—which is certainly worth reviewing but is being too widely attacked—strengthens the powers of the youth courts in a number of key ways.
The Government have been working for months—long before the recent publicity—on ways of strengthening the powers of the courts yet further. It is important to back up the work of the police and of the schools—and it is important to back up the work that should be done by all responsible parents if juvenile crime in this country is to be brought down to a tolerable level.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Home Secretary was singularly unprepared to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but will he comment on a letter that I received today from a constituent who is on the management committee of the Young Lewisham project? That project concerns itself specifically with dealing with young people before they become persistent offenders. The letter states:
I find it at least ironic and at worst callously indifferent to hear members of the Government and Ministers bemoaning the lack of social responsibility among young people and expressing concerns about juvenile crime, when the consequence of their policies on local government spending is that something as worth while as the Young Lewisham project is forced to close.
Will the Home Secretary ask his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that funding is available for ventures such as the Young Lewisham project? Will he also say when the measures that he has announced will be implemented?

Mr. Clarke: We have greatly expanded the finance available to social services departments, the police and the criminal justice system over the past 12 or 13 years. We continue to direct ourselves to how those resources can best be used. In the case of voluntary bodies supported by local authorities, provision is ultimately local, and must be determined by local authorities—along with their voluntary bodies—in the light of their own priorities, although the Government provide the funds.
How far and how rapidly we progress with the ideas that I have announced today will depend on the availability of parliamentary time, and on the progress of the discussions that I now propose to have about the development of the regime with all those who have expertise in the field. We need to define the cost of providing the necessary centres. We have every intention of pressing on as quickly as possible. I am glad to say that the Government identified the problem at an early stage, and we intend to introduce the new provisions as fast as is reasonably possible.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the frustration felt by the magistracy and the police about the present state of the law, which states that a child under the age of 10 is incapable of a criminal act, and that, in the case of a child aged between 10 and 14, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the child knew it was doing something criminal? Is there not an argument for stating—in the light of common knowledge of children and the way in which they mature nowadays—that the court should make its own judgment about whether a child knew that it was performing a criminal act, and should deal with that child accordingly?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the way in which children over 10 are dealt with. I have no doubt that there has been controversy for generations, in the House and elsewhere, about the age of criminal responsibility. Plainly, there comes a point at which a child cannot be placed before a court: we would not put before a court a seven-year-old awaiting sentence for a criminal act. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has reminded us, however, that does not mean that there is nothing that anyone can do about disruptive children.
It may not be suitable to put before a court a seven-year-old who has carried out violent, dangerous or


dishonest acts, thus beginning his criminal career and the list of his criminal convictions. Nevertheless, steps must be taken, by the education authority or, if necessary, the social services department, to deal with the disruptive behaviour of that child. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the earlier such potentially criminal behaviour is addressed, the better it may be for society as a whole.

Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary has placed a great onus on parents and teachers. Does he accept, however, that contradictory and confusing messages are sent to many homes because of the high level of television violence and the easy availability of snuff videos and video nasties, as well as the powerful effect of drugs as a pressure for crime?
Does the Home Secretary recognise that much of the problem is due to the fact that many of the children involved come from broken and unloving homes, where there are no fathers, where brothers and sisters often have multiple partners and where the steadying influence of grandparents does not exist? Does he accept that, although hon. Members on both sides of the House wholeheartedly support his call for children to be able to choose between right and wrong, that is virtually impossible while parents and teachers have to struggle with their current dilemma? They tell a child, "Thou shalt not kill, mug, maim, burgle or destroy"; at the same time, those actions feature, dressed up as entertainment, on virtually every televison programme that that child sees at home.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the material to which children are frequently exposed on television, in videos and elsewhere. It is less easy to come up with remedies on which the House can agree, but the House—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage—should continue to address the problem.
I agree strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said about drugs. We are seeking to develop yet stronger policies to deal with the abuse of drugs. It is one of the causes of crime that society has the ability to control, as long as we back up the police, the voluntary agencies and every other agency to try to contain it.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about support and affection in the home, obviously the best defence for a child is a good, supportive home where that child is given

affection, and is also taught to distinguish between right and wrong. The new centres that I propose for persistent juvenile offenders will be secure accommodation: the offenders will be locked up and prevented from escaping. They will be made to go through the process of education that they need at that age, and they will be trained; but I suspect that many will also receive more care, affection and personal attention than they received in their own homes. That is one of the many gaps that we shall fill when imposing a sentence that will usually be necessary in the offenders' interest, just as much as in the interest of the public.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's important statement. May I urge him not to delay the implementation of these necessary measures? Will he call on local authorities to use their existing powers much more effectively? Was it not noticeable that the Opposition spokesman had little to say about the many failures of local authorities in that respect?

Mr. Clarke: I shall be introducing legislation as soon as is reasonably possible, although, at the moment, the parliamentary timetable is peculiarly difficult to anticipate. However, this is an urgent priority. I have already said that we shall be making the necessary financial provision in this year's public expenditure round and we are now moving on to the detailed planning with the would-be providers of the centres that we require. I certainly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on the urgency of putting the measures in place.
I also agree with what he said about some local authorities. In some parts of the country there is a dearth of secure accommodation for juveniles, sometimes because the local authority social services department has a philosophical objection to providing it. If the climate of public opinion is changing generally, it should also change among such local authorities. If there has been a conversion among our opponents, that should help to produce a similar conversion by local government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am bringing questions on the statement to a close. The guillotine on the Education Bill falls in less than two hours, and we have private Members' business before that.

Points of Order

Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about asking the Secretary of State for Health to tell the House this afternoon whether it is true that she is about to announce a dramatic increase in prescription charges, which will constitute a rise of 2,000 per cent. since the Government said in 1979 that prescription charges would remain at 20p. She is prepared to tax the sick, not the rich—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech. I understood his Secretary of State for Health, but I have not been informed that she wishes to make a statement to the House. We shall now proceed with today's business.

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order relating to the Education Bill, Madam Speaker. I wish to complain about the intolerably short time that we have had to examine new clause 22. Hon. Members such as myself who live in the north and who go home to their constituencies at the weekend have not been allowed time to table an effective amendment.

Madam Speaker: That is very much a matter for the Government. It is not a point of order for me. I dealt with the amendments in good time and under the normal procedure.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I in no way seek to call into question what happened on the statement, Madam Speaker, but may I draw your attention to the fact that members of the two Front Benches took well over half of the 40 minutes we had for questions, leaving insufficient time for Back Benchers such as myself, whose constituencies suffer from these problems, to raise specific constituency issues? I realise the difficulty that you faced today, but could you perhaps bring pressure to bear indirectly on members of the Front Benches to make them

more aware of Back Benchers' problems in future and perhaps arrange for an urgent debate through the Leader of the House?

Madam Speaker: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support. I face such problems every day. I can assure him that every time there is a statement in the House I make a note of how long the members of the two Front Benches take and that I deal with the situation in the best way that I can. Today I have to strike a balance because of the guillotine on the Education Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the House understand that.

BILLS PRESENTED

CARRYING OF KNIVES ETC. (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Phil Gallie, supported by Mr. Raymond S. Robertson, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. Jim Wallace, Mrs Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman and Mr. Robert Hughes, presented a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for it to be an offence to have in a public place an article with a blade or point; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

EDUCATION (CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES APPEALS PROCEDURE)

Mr. Simon Hughes presented a Bill to allow for a right of appeal by pupils or parents refused admission to a City Technology College: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

OFFICIAL SECRETS

That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay]

Question agreed to.

Local Government (Amendment)

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision as to the functions of local authorities in relation to ethnic minorities; to amend section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to permit grants to be made to local authorities making special provisions in exercising their functions, in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of people from ethnic minority communities; and for connected purposes.

Mr. Gerrard: The purpose of the Bill is simply to make an amendment to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. That section enables the Home Secretary to make grants to local authorities to meet the needs of some ethnic minority communities within their areas. The system is that the Home Secretary provides 75 per cent. of the funding through grants, and the local authority matches that with 25 per cent. In the current year, about £129 million is being spent in this way and is funding the equivalent of about 10,000 full-time staff.
The problem with section 11 is the definition within it. At present it reads that the Home Secretary can make the grants to local authorities in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth. Although that wording may have been perfectly appropriate in 1966, now that we have significant numbers of refugees and asylum seekers not from the Commonwealth living in many local authority areas, it is not appropriate any more.
There are some other problems with section 11 which my Bill will not address. The problem of resources is one. The Government impose an annual cash limit and have just announced reductions over the next three years. It is somewhat ironic that, in the letter which they wrote to local authorities saying that they were firmly committed to the reduction of racial disadvantage, the Government announced cuts in this provision.
Also section 11 does not address short-term costs. Under my Bill grant could be paid to help local authorities to meet the special needs of refugees, but from time to time local authorities have to cope with sudden arrivals of significant numbers of people. That happened in the past with Kurdish refugees and more recently with refugees from eastern Europe.
It would be inappropriate to suggest that section 11 was the only way to address those problems, but it has been accepted for some time that section 11 needs amendment. The Government carried out their own review in 1988 and came to that conclusion, suggesting that there was need to widen the definition and that there should be changes in the requirement of substantial numbers, and that section 11 grant should be payable to other service providers and to the voluntary sector, although local authorities would continue to have an important role in co-ordination.
Since that review there have been some changes, but most of what was happening in 1988 is still happening. Almost 90 per cent. of section 11 funding goes to education. That reflects historic developments but also to some extent the cash limiting of the past two or three years which has prevented new projects from getting off the ground. So that the bulk of the money is going on projects such as English for speakers of other languages, careers education and adult basic literacy. But there are other services that are supporting projects such as helping

elderly people through the social services, business development advice, challenging racial harassment, translation and the like.
The difficulty is that the changing patterns of need and the need to deal with non-Commonwealth communities cannot be legitimately recognised within those projects. Some London boroughs will give estimates of the cost of providing services. Enfield and Ealing estimate that they have within their areas about 2,500 refugee children who require intensive language teaching. While it may not necessarily be appropriate for all that they need to be met under section 11, and while such need should certainly be recognised in standard spending assessments, section 11 projects should be able to address it.
The present situation is nonsensical in that a class of children, for example, could consist half of Turkish Cypriots and half of Turks. Half the class could be taught through a section 11 project and the other half could not, although clearly the needs would be similar. Over the past 15 years substantial numbers of people have arrived from non-Commonwealth countries—from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Latin America and, more recently, from eastern Europe. Many of those people have been granted settlement and have obvious needs. They require assistance but they cannot be helped under section 11. There is no doubt that the present arrangements make for inefficient administrative systems. For example, if an authority provides English classes it makes administrative and educational sense for them to be open to non-English speakers from any community rather than being restricted to people from new Commonwealth communities.
Some issues raised by the Home Office review, such as the use of other agencies and, to some degree, the use of the voluntary sector, have been dealt with through the ethnic minorities grants which were introduced in 1991 and are funded through training and enterprise councils. In setting up that system the Home Office said that it was a means by which grant could be opened up to new areas of ethnic minority need and to the voluntary sector, so that the needs of all ethnic minorities, without regard to origin, could be considered. It is a pity that so far the Home Office has found only £4 million a year to distribute in ethnic minorities grant. In addition, local authorities have been encouraged to base projects in the voluntary sector. Indeed, they are required to identify section 11 projects for grant bids.
Everyone involved with section 11 now recognises that it needs amending. The Home Office recognises that, too. Ideally, the Home Office should have dealt with the matter after its review, with new legislation covering all the aspects. Instead the matter has been addressed in a piecemeal way. That is not ideal, but it is a precedent that the Government have already set. After listening to statements such as that which we heard earlier, and thinking about the pressures on parliamentary time, think it unlikely that the Government will find time for a Bill on the subject. In the meantime, therefore, my Bill is needed to help local authorities to target resources efficiently and effectively and to help them reflect the changing needs within their areas.
I finish by quoting the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), whom I am glad to see sitting on the Government Front Bench now. Last year the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Refugee Council in response to its enquiry about the scope for section 11, saying that he recognised its concern


that the majority of refugees are not able to benefit from support under this provision because they do not come from the New Commonwealth…We accept that there is a need to bring forward legislation and when there is a suitable opportunity we intend to extend the scope of the grant beyond New Commonwealth ethnic minorities to whom, for historical reasons, it is restricted at present.
The Minister now has an opportunity to support my Bill and to do what the Home Office has been saying for some time that it wants to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Stephen Byers and Mr. Bernie Grant.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision as to the functions of local authorities in relation to ethnic minorities; to amend section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to permit grants to be made to local authorities making special provisions in exercising their functions, in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of people from ethnic minority communities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)

Resolved,
That the Report [11th February] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Newton.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 and 2, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 3 to 7, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 8 to 29, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 30 to 44, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 45 to 49, Schedules Nos. 5 and 6, Clauses Nos. 50 to 53, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 54 to 154, Schedule No. 8, Clauses No. 155, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 156 to 168, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 169 to 201, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 202 to 219, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 220 to 222, Schedule No. 13, Clauses Nos. 223 to 231, Schedule No. 14, Clauses Nos. 232 to 237, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 238 to 268 and Schedules Nos. 16 to 18; and new Schedules;
(2) The allotted days which under the Order of 15th December are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Government new Clauses
6 p.m.



Remaining new Clauses
8 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 143
10 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 195
midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 12
6.30 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 256
6.30 p.m.



Amendments to Clause No. 257
8 p.m.



Remaining proceedings on consideration
9 p.m.



Third Reading
10 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns the selection of amendments for today's debate. Under the selection on clause 156, amendment No. 97 has been selected. That amendment directs that the subsection of the clause should be left out and that subsections (2) and (3) should be inserted. Those subsections include the provisions in amendment No. 98, but amendment No. 98 has not been selected, so amendment No. 97 does not make any sense in its present form.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had given me a little notice, I might have been able to turn all the pages more rapidly. As all the amendment and page numbers were thrown at me, may I examine the matter and report back to him?

New clause 22

GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE

' .—(1) The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.
(2) In particular he shall exercise for that purpose his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which—

(a) carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for education is made in, or in any area of, England or Wales, or
(b) conduct educational institutions in England and Wales.

(3) He shall, in the case of his powers to regulate the provision made in educational institutions in England and Wales, exercise his powers with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it might be convenient to take the following: amendment (b) to the new clause, at end insert—
'(4) He shall exercise his powers in respect of the distribution of public funds to ensure that they are distributed equitably.'.
Government amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

Mr. Patten: I am glad to put to the House something which I think will be historically important in educational terms. I am all the more pleased because I presume that it will have the enthusiastic support of Opposition Members. I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) assures me that the clause responds to the general concerns of both sides of the Standing Committee.
I believe that one of the first people to press for me to move such a new clause was the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). That is exactly what one might

expect from such an erudite and far-seeing Member of the House. I hope that I am damaging enough with his general management committee in what I am saying. Of course, his views were—

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Patten: I was just coming to my hon. Friend. I know that he felt exactly the same way. That does not surprise me, because his wisdom and judgment in such matters are unparalleled throughout the House.

Mr. Pawsey: I am not quite sure whether I should have asked my right hon. Friend to give way at that specific time. I was merely going to say that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke at some length on the matter in Standing Committee. Clearly, there is a general flow of good will across the Chamber on this important clause. I feel it only right that my right hon. Friend should be aware of that current of good will.

Mr. Patten: I wish that there would always be a current of good will from both sides of the House whenever I get to the Dispatch Box.
I know that both sides of the Chamber are realistic about the way in which the educational world has changed beyond the vision set out at the beginning of the 1944 Education Act. I welcome the fact that, even though we may differ on many other points, everyone seems to recognise that the world has moved on in the last half-century. That is not surprising.

Mr. Derek Enright: In the current constructive mood of good will, would the Secretary of State care to take on board the 99 positive proposals which we have made but which he has overlooked or the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is loth to tell him about? The right hon. Gentleman will have overlooked it. I understand that because he did not appear once to listen to the deliberations of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Patten: All those constructive views were listened to carefully, and, with his usual charm, rejected, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
I am indebted to both Conservative and Opposition members of the Committee for their support in the Standing Committee for the move that we are making. The debates, which are there in the Standing Committee Hansard for all to see, highlighted the fact that section 1 o the Education Act 1944 refers exclusively to the responsibility of local education authorities alone for the delivery of education services. It is no longer the case that LEAs alone have responsibility for the delivery of education. Things have moved on a great deal in the past half-century.
The thrust of Government policy in recent years has been to change the picture, especially since the landmark Education Reform Act 1988, which will be a monument to the service rendered in this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). That Act has helped to transfer power and responsibility to the institutions—the schools and colleges.
The 1988 Act created the initial framework for the transfer of power by requiring schemes of local management for all state schools and colleges of further education, and by giving schools the right to opt out of


local education authority control. One of the results of that bears repeating, because Opposition Members continue to talk the success story down.
There has been a startlingly successful move towards self-government in both further education and grant-maintained schools. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I attended a reception last night to mark the creation of the new further education sector, which will have complete freedom from local authority control after 1 April 1993. We have seen the effects and benefits of increased freedom.
As of today, more than 650 schools have applied for full self-governing, grant-maintained status. As projected in last summer's White Paper, by April 1994 the number of grant-maintained schools could be about 1,500. Of course, by then all LEA schools in Britain will have delegated budgets under the local management of schools scheme. LMS was bitterly fought a few years ago by the Opposition but, curiously enough, it is often used now as a weapon to persuade schools not to become self-governing. Local authorities say, "We will give you 85, 90 or 95 per cent. of the control over your budget."
As Mr. Enoch Powell might have said, it is paradoxical that that which the Labour party used to oppose five years ago it now uses as a weapon to try to stand in the way of Government policy. That attempt will fail, in the same way as opposition to delegated school management failed only five years ago.

Mr. Win Griffiths: A similar statement was made in Committee that we opposed the principle of local management of schools. We did not. We opposed the formula which the then Secretary of State proposed to introduce—especially the running sore of basing the budget on average school salary costs rather than real school salary costs.

Mr. Patten: No one who was in the House in 1987 and 1988, who sat through the many hours of the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill or who took part in and listened with care and attention to the debates on the Floor of the House could have come away with anything other than the opinion that the Labour party did not wish to see the end of local bureaucratic control.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated conversion. I suppose that it is the beginning of the modernisation of the Labour party's education policy, albeit five years behind the times. After the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has left her position on the Front Bench to go somewhere else, the next Front-Bench spokesman will be thoroughly in favour of grant-maintained schools, just you wait and see.
The belief in self-government lay at the heart of the White Paper introduced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and of the Bill, which has now almost completed its passage through this House. The Bill consolidates the framework laid down in the 1988 Act. That framework provides for more and more schools to achieve self-governing status. But the laws which govern the provision of education must recognise what is happening and the fact that there have been other transfers of powers in the education world.
The then R. A. Butler's 1944 Education Act marked a great leap forward in the development of the education

system in this country. I often think that, had the then R. A. Butler, in his scheme in the 1944 Act, had the benefit of the national curriculum and regular testing, the tripartite division of schools that he introduced in that Act might still endure today, because the national curriculum provides equality of opportunity and a minimum entitlement for all our children.
That did not happen, as he did not have a national curriculum or testing, but the Act itself has been on the statute book for half a century, and times have changed. The model of a centrally planned system, from Whitehall to town halls and county halls, is no longer appropriate, with a hierarchy of control from the Secretary of State to the local education authority, and through the local education authority to the school or college. It is certainly not appropriate for the 21st century, as was obvious to some well before the Education Act 1988.
My noted constituent Professor Halsey, fellow of Nuffield College Oxford, was much mentioned during Prime Minister's Question Time, and I have followed his sayings over the years. In a speech as long ago as January 1981, he doubted the wisdom of leaving education in the hands of—I quote directly from The Guardian, so it must be true—"professional education officers". He recommended a system whereby every school would receive a direct grant from Whitehall. As Professor Halsey said, "Why not try something revolutionary—local democracy?" That is exactly what we are doing. The Labour party is just 12 or 13 years behind Professor Halsey.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: During the process of the Bill through Committee, Opposition Members were continually talking about our measures being centralising. My right hon. Friend is making it perfectly clear that they do not even begin to understand the purpose of the Bill and Government policy. Will he confirm that our proposals and the Bill move towards local democracy and to the control of education being in the hands of schools, teachers and parents, and are the opposite of centralisation?

Mr. Patten: Some people in the Labour party are now beginning to believe that, in democracies throughout the western world, the move towards giving individuals and communities greater control over their own affairs, be it in schools or the health service, is a model. Words such as "empowerment" and "distribution of power" have been falling from the lips of some of the modernisers in the Labour party.
However, none of those modernisers is represented on the Opposition Front Bench today. The Opposition education team is in the hands of the producer lobbies and one or two trade unions. They should listen to what Professor Halsey said in 1981. I repeat, for the second and last time, my prediction that, by the end of the Parliament, we might well see the Labour party having turned on its head on grant-maintained schools, in the same way as it has done over trust hospitals and the local management of schools. That has been the history of the Labour party since 1979.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am extremely concerned that the Secretary of State is not up to date. Perhaps he has not read Professor Halsey's letter in The Guardian this morning, in which he fully reaffirms his commitment to comprehensive schools, and states:


My preferred educational policy is also that of the Labour Party which deplores Conservative privatisation, underfunding and centralised bureaucracy, and which favours comprehensive schools. In short I remain an unrepentant ethical socialist.

Mr. Patten: For some reason, I have not read The Guardian this morning. I will do so, but I was reading from what Professor Halsey said 12 years ago. He may well have turned on his head, having been used so much by the Conservative party and the press. I regret the fact that he is now flicking backwards and forwards between one position and another.
Historians and academics, like Professor Halsey, would think ill of Members of Parliament if we failed in our duty to bring the lapsing provisions of the Education Act 1944 up to date, and it is in that spirit that I tabled the new clause. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will admire its straightforward simplicity. It is deliberately framed in a general form. Without the tedium of a long list, it covers all the relevant institutions and bodies. It also covers the colleges of further education, the Further Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities.
This is a radically different picture from that of half a century ago, when local education authorities ruled all the education waves—not only schools but further education colleges, and subsequently those institutions that became polytechnics, which a few years ago we set free of local authority control and enfranchised as independent universities. One has only to go to an independent grant-maintained school, an independent further education college or an independent university within the state system to see the benefits of independence. Those benefits need to be reflected in this vital clause.
The new clause also emphasises the Government's key educational objectives, which, unfortunately, do not seem to be shared by many Opposition Members. These objectives include improved standards—improved mainly through the encouragement of diversity—and increased choice for pupils and parents.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this very independence that stimulates vitality and new ideas in heads and teaching staffs, as well as in parents? Responsibility for implementation is what really brings ideas to fruition. In teaching, that is what provides ultimate satisfaction.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend was in education for many years before coming to the House. Because of that experience, I respect what he says and always give way to him.
What my hon. Friend has said does not apply just to grant-maintained schools. One now finds 90 per cent. delegation in LEA schools. Many such schools are on the edge of the nest, ready to fly off as fully independent institutions. There is a terrific feeling of zip and vim, and there is much experimentation. I pay tribute to those schools. The modernising tendency that is sweeping the Labour party has yet to reach education.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I approve entirely of the right hon. Gentleman's concern for diversity and choice. In that context, will he look again at what I said in Committee about the possibility of providing state funding for schools whose curricula are

different from, but none the less at a deep level compatible with, the national curriculum in terms of both scope and standards?
Does he recognise that such schools have an enormous contribution to make? So long as it can be proved that they have been successful and have reached the same destination by a different route, consideration ought to be given to some means, other than those that I have proposed, of providing state support for them.

Mr. Patten: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these issues. I was about to say that he and I have crossed swords, but it would be more correct to say that we have almost crossed the Floor towards each other during Question Time exchanges about special educational needs. I respect his views and am aware of his deep interest in Steiner schools. I respect what that movement does.
However, state funds should be provided for schools that undertake the national curriculum. That is a minimum entitlement of all children in all schools of any sort within the state sector. The grant-maintained schools, county schools and schools in metropolitan areas deliver it. That is the right way forward.
We are always willing to consider applications from schools of all sorts for admission to the state sector, provided there is no surplus of school places in the areas concerned, and provided that the schools teach the national curriculum. Having been made aware of the hon. Gentleman's position, I shall keep an open mind on these issues. However, in the context of this Bill, we cannot go any further down the route that I know the hon. Gentleman wishes us to take.
I have referred to the way in which the system has changed since 1944. This new clause certainly does not sound the death knell for council control of primary and secondary schools. In effect, schemes of delegated management and self-government have almost done that already.
The new clause makes it clear that the role of local education authorities is changing rapidly. So far as some schools stay within the LEAs, these authorities will continue to plan provision in them and service them. The LEAs will also retain certain key strategic responsibilities —most notably in the field of special educational needs. But LEAs will no longer be the sole, and in some cases no longer a substantial, provider of education.
Education authorities are increasingly becoming enablers. They are enabling schools to provide education and are providing some services. The new clause reflects that existing and dynamic state of affairs. It encapsulates the Government's vision of our future education system. It recognises the fact that the system is changing very rapidly, as well as the extent of change since 1944, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I ought to start by welcoming the Secretary of State to the debate on the Bill. Since November we have been discussing it in great detail in Committee. The fact that the Secretary of State never even put his head round the door of the Committee room proves that his interest in the Bill is not exactly commendable.
The Secretary of State did not make any reference to amendment (b), in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends. That amendment would provide that
He shall exercise his powers in respect of the distribution of public funds to ensure that they are distributed equitably.
It is surprising that the Secretary of State did not say whether he was prepared to accept our amendment. Obviously, this is an issue with which he does not feel comfortable. Perhaps his remarks a few moments ago explain his problem. He said that schools should receive public money for delivering the national curriculum, yet the Government support the assisted places scheme, by which public money is used to subsidise independent schools that do not provide the national curriculum. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State was not willing to address the basic principle of equity, which is the foundation of our amendment.
In some respects, the new clause could be seen as harmless. It is a declaratory provision full of rhetoric but without much meaning. It is strange in that it gives the Secretary of State powers, whereas the Act of 1944 imposed duties. If the Secretary of State's role is so critical, he should be seen as undertaking duties rather than exercising powers. One can choose whether to exercise powers.
In any case, I am not happy with the new clause. It is not true that there was Opposition pressure for it. Opposition Members drew attention to the anomaly in the Government's legislation, but that is hardly the equivalent of calling for such a provision. Before the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends came on the scene, there was a consensus that the Government were responsible for providing the framework of education, while the local authorities administered its delivery in accordance with local circumstances and local decisions, democratically arrived at. That is local accountability—a concept with which the Secretary of State seems to have difficulty in grappling. The Secretary of State's grabbing of specific powers has proceeded apace in recent years.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1988, which was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Once that power was given to Secretaries of State, they became addicted to acquiring even more power and holding it in their own hands. Even before this Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State had power to appoint to quangos whomever he liked and to seek advice from those agreeing with him, and from no one else. The Secretary of State can decide the content of the curriculum. Indeed, he can announce changes such as the one about which we heard today—that the chairman of the National Curriculum Council and the chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council have resigned and a new appointment has been made. It is interesting to note that, when talking about his powers and role, the Secretary of State does not refer to the changes relevant to the Bill that have been made during the discussions on the measure.
Let us not forget that the right hon. Gentleman had, and used, many powers prior to the introduction of the Bill. He had powers over the curriculum, assessment and testing and powers to determine methods and levels of funding, in so far as the Treasury would allow, and over methods of teaching and teacher training. But even that array of powers was not enough for the present Secretary

of State, which is why new clauses were introduced at a late stage, well after the guillotine had fallen, without proper time for consultations. Ministers have been panicked into using the measure to prop up some of their failing policies.
For example, the Secretary of State is taking new powers under clause 25 to enable him to declare void a ballot on grant-maintained status, if he thinks that somebody has played a part in influencing the ballot through the provision of information to parents. He will personally make that judgment. He has already introduced a new clause to force the issue of grant-maintained status on to the agenda of every governing body each year. So much for Government claims about trusting the judgment of governors.
Now we have the new clause, the so-called zero clause, which emphasises the role of the individual who holds the Secretary of State's office. But the right hon. Gentleman spent little time on the way in which he wants to repeal section 1 of the Education Act 1944, which he called the bedrock of education for the last 40 years. That fundamental change to the 1944 Act was introduced last Friday, although it was trailed in The Daily Mail a day earlier. The change, fundamental to the balance of power in education, has not been arrived at through consultation or consensus. The Government have simply determined to use their majority to achieve the change, without canvassing opinion inside or outside Parliament. Ministers are making policy on the hoof. Their policies will not stand the test of time, and the present Secretary of State is not well known for his willingness to consult on any issue.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Lady agree that only two weeks ago the Secretary of State met representatives of five of the six main teacher unions—a clear sign that he is prepared to listen to what others have to say?

Mrs. Taylor: I fancy that the Secretary of State would rather not receive that type of assistance from the Benches behind him, not least because he has been personally responsible for digging the very hole out of which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was trying to rescue him. It was clear from what was said at Question Time earlier that the Secretary of State has still not taken on board many of the fundamental points that the teachers put to him.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State even discussed the issues involved with the Prime Minister. After all, on Friday we had the publication of the new clause, which The Daily Mail described as the death knell of local authorities—we have been told that the Secretary of State does not believe in local authorities and thinks they should be abolished—and on the following day the Prime Minister told the Conservative local government conference—many people must have been surprised to learn that there was such a body—that there should be a new partnership between central and local government. If there is to be such a partnership, why is the Secretary of State trying to abolish the responsibility and accountability in education that local authorities have had under the Education Act 1944?
In Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools—who, unlike the Secretary of State, was present for all our sessions; I suppose that the Government had to be represented by someone—made it clear that he regarded any Conservatiive councillor as having a vested interest. When we asked him about his attitude towards


Conservative education leaders who had reservations about the Bill, he dismissed them as vested interests. I wonder whether he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister or took on board his right hon. Friend's claimed new spirit of co-operation with local authorities.
The new clause confirms that the Secretary of State wants a national system of education under his personal political control. He is making it clearer than ever that schools that become grant-maintained will not be opting out of local authority control but will be opting into centralised control under the right hon. Gentleman's direction. He will, as now, determine the curriculum, the level of funding and the number of teachers and, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said, the Government do not believe that the class size issue is relevant to the quality of education.

Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Lady has spoken at length about the powers of the Secretary of State. Will she comment on the objectives of the new clause which those powers will be used to achieve? In other words, will she speak about my right hon. Friend's powers to improve standards and to increase diversity and opportunity for choice? What has she to say to parents about those issues? What is her philosophy towards, and her policies on, education and standards?

Mrs. Taylor: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend said at Question Time this afternoon that during 14 years of Conservative rule the problems of illiteracy in Britain had increased. I accept that we need improved standards, but there is no sign of such standards being achieved for all children in Britain under the Conservatives.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: If the hon. Lady is arguing that many grant-maintained schools are effectively opting into central Government control, may I ask her to square that with the remarks of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—a quite intelligent Labour Front-Bench spokesman—who said in June 1992 that parents and governors might feel bound to make decisions about what was best for their schools and that Labour must not appear to be in opposition to those parents? If parents feel that they can take more control of decisions relating to their schools, they cannot feel that they are opting into control by central Government.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. While I do not recall him praising my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was shadow Secretary of State, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the praise retrospectively. There have been occasions when parents have suggested that a school should become grant maintained to protect its comprehensive nature. I believe that some parents will take that course, and I shall appreciate their concern in view of the selection that is being introduced.

Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend may recall that I was a member of the Labour education team at the time to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred. We were then particularly referring to parents in Kent, Tory Wandsworth and other Conservative authorities where schools were being starved and were having imposed on them a system of education that they did not want. Therefore, in order to preserve the strength of comprehensive education, which they wanted their

children to continue to enjoy, we said that perhaps we had to allow them to make that choice. The Tories were not allowing them any decisions or any choice over the future education of their children.

5 pm

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it would not be the intention of the hon. Member for Durham, North West (Ms. Armstrong) to mislead the House in any way. We recognise that she is a person of integrity, but I fear that, inadvertently, she has not entirely answered the point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Pawsey: I have in my possession a copy of the press release that was published at the time. It is headed
Labour publishes new advice on opting-out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that my—

Mr. John Bowis: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I am answering the point first. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are working to a guillotine, because his Government have limited the time for discussion of this Bill.
When the White Paper was published, followed by the Bill, many people outside the House expressed concern at the centralisation of decision making in education. There are now many people whose anxiety has increased as the Bill has gone through Committee and the Secretary of State has taken more powers to himself.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: My hon. Friend will agree with me that from the beginning of this debate it has been clear that the Bill has nothing to do with standards. It is designed to centralise education and obliterate local education authorities. That has been the main aim of the Bill from the first day.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Sometimes Ministers have been honest about that, and sometimes they have tried to disguise that purpose. I think that it is true to say that Conservative councillors involved in education, as well as Labour councillors and those from other parties, are desperately concerned about the power that the Secretary of State has already, the way in which he uses that power and the constant interference in education by Ministers. I believe that their concern would increase were the Government to get their way and add the new clause to the Bill.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I seek merely to correct an impression that might otherwise mislead the House. I have in my possession the press notice that was issued by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It is headed:
Labour publishes new advice on opting-out.
The date is 10 June 1992 and the relevant section is:
it must be recognised that local circumstances will vary. The community of schools is under threat of being broken up, but parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions


about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents..
That is the relevant issue.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstong) said; that that was in relation to Kent and Wandsworth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the majority of schools that have opted out have been in Conservative-controlled authorities. The Secretary of State who introduced the original legislation said that he expected opt-out to take place in areas where there were poor local authorities and parents wanted to escape from them. It is very evident that, if that is the reasoning behind opting out, it is in Tory areas that there is the greatest level of dissatisfaction.

Mr. Bowis: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: No, I must carry on. Hon. Members will complain if I do not draw my remarks to a close.
There was a great deal of concern when Ministers first decided to take these extra powers. The Association of County Councils, which is a Conservative-dominated body, called it a constitutional Bill and expressed its alarm; the Churches expressed their concern at the extra powers that the Secretary of State was taking; and even the Conservative Education Association talked about the Secretary of State trying to nationalise our schools, and said that the Bill proposed a frightening over-centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. And that was before this new clause was introduced.
No Secretary of State should be, or should try to be, all-powerful in education. No Secretary of State—not even a Labour one—has a monopoly of wisdom. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not share his Prime Minister's commitment to having a partnership between central and local government. Just as the delivery of education at school level is best achieved by a proper partnership between parents and teachers, so the structure of education in this country would be best achieved by a partnership between central and local government.
Ministers are not interested in partnership. This Secretary of State wants to grab all powers to himself. That cannot be the way forward, and for that reason we oppose these proposals.

Mr. Bowis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order to respond to this first debate, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman just has, without referring to amendment (b) standing in her name. There has been no reference to any Labour policy on this measure.

Mrs. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I not only sought to move that amendment, but asked the Secretary of State what his response would be. I spelt out very clearly the principle of equity established in our amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's interest in that amendment means that he will vote for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has answered the point of order.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have listened to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) with great interest. Each seemed to me to seek to use party political and national history to illustrate their versions of events and their views on what ought to be happening in education in this country.
For my money, my right hon. Friend is going in the right direction. The central reason for that is the promotion of the theme of independence and of choice and diversity in education. One is bound, looking at the matter historically, to compare that with the Labour party's record. As the Bible says, by their deeds ye shall know them. I always remember that when I pay attention to the Labour party. One never wants to listen to what Labour party supporters say; one must watch what they do.
This is the party that produced circular 10/66, which said that we would have a unitary system of education; we would abolish all grammar schools, independent schools, single sex schools, and all the rest. We would have one form of secondary education—comprehensive. There is a lot to be said for that system—I worked in it for well over 20 years—but to say that everything else must be jettisoned simply for this unitary form of education was preposterous.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I intend to be very brief, but I will give way once.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that circulars 10/65 and 10/66 were advice by the Department of Education to local authorities, and that it was up to the latter to determine whether it was carried out?

Mr. Greenway: Yes, but "advice" in inverted commas. It was very heavy advice, and local authorities knew very well that they had to observe it. [Interruption.] I was in schools, and I know very well what the pressure was. I suppose that I was working for the most socialist authority in the country—the Inner London education authority. Its response was to get rid of every grammar and voluntary school. I remember hearing the chairman of the schools sub-committee of ILEA, Mrs. Irene Chaplin, tell the heads of all voluntary-aided schools, "We're going to do you." What did she mean? She intended to get rid of them.
ILEA intended to get rid of all diversity in education in London, and it produced the London plan, which aimed to produce 97 comprehensive schools out of all the secondary modern, grammar, and technical schools, many of which were so excellent. Why did ILEA do so? It was a response to heavy "advice" from the Labour Government, who wanted identical education for all children in secondary schools. Their aim was to achieve a unique socialist child or protege. Comprehensive schools were designed not to give children an education for life, but to produce socialists.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend has heard the Opposition pay lip service to local accountability today. Does he recall what happened when local education authorities voted to oppose central Government diktat? Does he recall what happened every time that parents, teachers and schools sought to oppose it? They were overruled.

Mr. Greenway: There is no doubt that the Labour party's education record has been highly authoritarian,


and that it never encouraged schools to have an individual approach. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure, by law, that schools may have such an approach in future, and I warmly welcome it.
Freedom and choice in schools are essential. The Labour party has argued that the Bill will centralise education, but it could not be more wrong. Every secondary school in my constituency is, or is on the way to being, grant maintained, and they choose that route by first balloting parents of children at the' school. What could be more democratic?

Mr. Hall: What is the local authority?

Mr. Greenway: When the ballot was set up at the school attended by the children of the former Leader of the Opposition, the then Labour-controlled Ealing council sent in all the heavies—

Mr. Patten: There was intimidation.

Mr. Greenway: Yes, there was tremendous intimidation. The council sent in the education officer, the deputy education officer and the chairman of the education committee, whose father is the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—every heavy that one could think of—to pressurise the parents against voting to make Drayton Manor high school grant maintained; but the parents fought it and took a democratic decision. They threw off Labour party pressure to go grant maintained. The debate was long and lasted many months, but the ballot could not have been more democratic or more decisive, which was a slap in the face to local socialists, to the then Leader of the Opposition and to the Labour party.
First, parents are balloted; secondly, the Bill will ensure that grant-maintained schools and many of those with local management, which all schools will soon have, will take decisions locally.
How was it done in the long days of Labour Governments? One could not take decisions locally then. My last school, which was built by the Labour-controlled ILEA—before that it was the London county council—had five gymnasiums, and they all leaked. How long did it take for the roofs to be repaired? First, I had to contact the local education authority's architects department, and after six months it sent for the GLC architects. When they could not come, they sent in contractors. After a couple of years, the job was put out to contract, and eventually the leaks were repaired. Grant-maintained schools will be able to call in builders to fix leaks the day after they occur. Such independence is a great improvement and will be of tremendous value to schools.
Finally, giving independence to schools, which the Bill once enacted will do through new clause 22, will grant them a crucial decision-making power over how to spend their cash. For example, Northholt high school has decided to change from local authority cleaners to a cleaning company, which saves £70,000. That money has gone towards more teachers, pens, pencils, rubbers, books and all the rest, and that was a local decision.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important advantages of new clause 22, once it becomes law, will be that schools will have the opportunity to spend money on building improvements? For example, in my constituency the Labour-controlled local authority is insisting that a school

should install another old terrapin building, when the governors and the head teacher know that they could get a new, brick-built classroom for less.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has such a good argument. I cannot understand why Opposition Members do not accept the arguments for independence and freedom put forward by Conservative Members to involve the local community, whether parents with children at the school or well-wishers, such as pensioners who enjoy attending school functions and others near the schools. They will become more involved, schools will improve and the children will benefit. Surely that is what it is all about.
The reorganisation of London schools wasted between 10 and 20 years, and children's education suffered grievously. That must never happen again, and it will not under the Bill.

Mr. Don Foster: First, I join the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in welcoming the Secretary of State to the debate. We are all delighted that he will at last join our detailed discussion of the Bill, for which he claims personal responsibility.
Many hon. Members will have seen the press release of new clause 22 put out by the Secretary of State, which explicitly stated that the new clause was being tabled because schools are in the driving seat. Those of us who have studied the changes in legislation in recent years will know that that is being economical with the truth. The reality is that the Secretary of State is firmly in the driving seat. He has closed the doors of his vehicle so that he cannot hear what anyone else is saying, save for those few who have decided to get in with him. The Secretary of State has determined the direction and the route that will be taken, and many people are concerned about that.
The new clause states:
The Secretary of State…shall exercise…his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds".
I hope that that means that local education authorities will be included in the list.

Mr. Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: I see that the Secretary of State nods. I know that many hon. Members fear for the long-term future of local education authorities because of the hammer blows that the Government have dealt them.
The new funding authorities established through this legislation will also be included in the list. My problem is that I do not understand—and it has not been explained to me in a way that I can understand—how the Secretary of State will exercise his powers through those two bodies. He was not with us when we debated this issue in Committee, but perhaps I can remind him that, in respect of the working relationship between LEA and the funding authorities, he said:
There will be two bodies—the LEA and the funding agency—with parallel but not shared responsibilities."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 635.]
Some of us did not understand that and, in Committee, we pressed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools to explain it. At one point, he said:
We have no difficulty accepting the concept of shared responsibility"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1992; c. 391.]
He was already beginning to contradict the Secretary of State.
Finally, in what the Under-Secretary called his definitive explanation, he said in Committee:
there is shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 December 1992;c. 517.]
I hope that the Secretary of State will take particular note of that, as it directly contradicts his statement. None of us really understood what that meant, so we have grave reservations about new clause 22(2), which states that the Secretary of State will exercise his powers
in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds".
What is even more worrying about the new clause is the way in which subsection (3) is significantly infused with Tory party dogma. It refers to the Secretary of State exercising his powers
with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.
Those words are harmless enough on the face of it, but given what we have come to know the Secretary of State to mean by them, they are extremely destructive in his hands. Many hon. Members will have noticed that, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new clause, he did not quote those words precisely; he put it rather differently and spoke about the power to improve standards, mainly through encouraging diversity and increasing choice. That reinforces my point about the new clause representing Conservative party dogma.
When the Secretary of State talks about improving standards, he fails to do so in the way that most of us consider to be vital—by making a significant improvement to the resources available to our schools. When the Secretary of State talks about judging standards, as he did in the debate about the key stage 3 English standard assessment task, the SAT, he is talking about simplistic paper and pencil tests. The right hon. Gentleman may talk about encouraging diversity, but many of us are increasingly concerned that what he means is the back-door introduction of selection by ability. The decision on Southlands girls school reinforces our concern.
The Secretary of State's concept of choice is different from that understood by many others. It is therefore surprising that he introduced a new clause that included the word "choice", especially when the Under-Secretary has accepted that that word is inappropriate. It was the right hon. Gentleman's own Minister who referred back to the words contained within the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, which explained that parents had the ability "to express a preference" for a school. Many of us know that the choice of school is not available to the vast majority of parents.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On the question of choice, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation in Hillingdon, where many of the secondary schools became grant maintained, and where, as a result, a smaller proportion of parents are now getting their first choice of secondary school for their children than under the old system?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady has illustrated the concern that many of us feel about the concept of choice, as used by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, which is merely rhetoric. It is not borne out by the options available to parents.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir. M. Thornton) is even more trenchant than I have been in his criticism of the use of the word "choice". I should remind the Secretary of State that that hon. Gentleman said:
To be told that you have the freedom to choose is a sick joke when the only choice is between losing teachers or slashing an already reduced sum for capitation.
The Secretary of State may talk about choice, but he still refuses to allow legislation to be introduced that would enable future generations of parents to have the option to allow their children's schools to opt out of grant-maintained status and back into LEA control.
In Committee, we discovered that one of the reasons that we were there was for the Secretary of State—or in his absence, the Under-Secretary—to explain their thinking behind the Bill. The words of the new clause may seem fine, but when we analyse the underlying principle and what it would mean if it rested in the hands of the Secretary of State, we must all be extremely concerned.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the new clause. I cannot think of anyone in whose hands those powers and responsibilities would be better placed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have one slight proviso: I hope that they will always rest in such good hands, because I am a little worried that, at some point in the future, improving standards may not be part of the picture.
On Second Reading and in Committee there was little mention of nursery education and I should like to spend a few moments considering it. Evidence has been gained from this country and many others of the effectiveness of early education. In countries where children have access to good-quality pre-school education the evidence suggests that they have an advantage when starting school. They score higher marks in the SATs at the age of seven and do better at school at the age of 10 on a variety of scores.
In the United States, research has revealed the long-term benefits of nursery education, which include a reduced likelihood of delinquency in later years—that is of particular importance in the light of recent events in this country and the statement made by the Home Secretary only this afternoon. That research also revealed that nursery education resulted in fewer referrals to special education schools and fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies and that children went on to enjoy happier marriages and a better job life than those who did not benefit from such education. One report of particular importance, bearing in mind that it covered two departments, revealed that for every dollar spent, ․4·30 was saved. It is important, therefore, to appreciate that nursery education is a question not merely for the Treasury, but for policy decision.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary rejected amendment No. 83 because he said that it was unnecessary and pointless. It had been moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who made an extremely good speech; I endorse much of what she said. The Under-Secretary was good enough to accept amendment No. 105, which added a reference to nursery schooling to schedule 2.
The Minister also referred to the Education Acts of 1944 and 1980 and he correctly pointed out that neither required previous or future funding of nursery education —more's the pity, to my mind. Many LEAs, however, provide such education now and I believe that many more should be encouraged to do so.
The new clause establishes the Secretary of State's responsibility for, and powers over, the conduct of all educational institutions in England and Wales that receive public funding. I am sure that he would want to clarify how the provision for nursery schooling will be made in the future. That raises two questions, the first of which relates to the general level of funding for nursery education. There is certainly a lack of clarity about the Government's future funding policy for it.
I should like increased resources for nursery education, and have argued about the effectiveness of such expenditure, both earlier in my speech and on previous occasions. However, my immediate concern is to ensure both a continuing commitment to nursery education and that expenditure is maintained, at least at current levels. That is one way forward.
5.30 pm
There are three other possible ways forward. The first is to earmark funding for services for children under five at both central and local government level. The second way is to accept the longer-term need for increased spending on nursery education and reflect that in increased standard spending assessments. The third way is to make provision statutory or to return to the pre-1980 position, where local authorities had a duty to provide nursery education, with additional resourcing as required. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government did not intend:
that the duty of the funding agency of the schools funding council for Wales to secure sufficient school places should include a duty to secure nursery places. The LEA's duty under section 8 of the Education Act 1944, to which the duty of the funding authority is linked in paragraph 3(3) and (5) of schedule 2, does not include a duty to secure sufficient nursery places—it is not the intention that the funding agency or the funding council should cover nursery education. However, if on further reflection we believe that that may be the case, we shall return to it at a later stage.
I hope that there is a promise hanging there. My hon. Friend continued:
if a school with full-time nursery provision becomes grant-maintained it will be funded in total by the funding agency for schools. That will not he so if the school offers only part-time provision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1992; c. 483–84.]

Mrs. Anne Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little concerned about to which of the Government's new clauses or amendments the hon. Gentleman is speaking. I think that many Opposition Members will endorse what he is saying about nursery education, but we fail to see the relevance of his speech now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The scope of the new clause is wide, and it refers to nursery education. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is in order: if he were not, I should have ruled him out of order.

Mr. Rathbone: The subject could not be more pertinent, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking on more and more responsibility for the funding. We are discussing an important point of principle as well as a point of practice. I hope that I have illustrated by the two quotations that I gave from my hon. Friend the Minister

that there appears to be an inherent tension between the two extracts, particularly since some definitions of full time might include the majority of nursery provision.
The proposals on the common funding formula are currently out for consultation. There still appears to be some confusion over what constitutes full-time provision and what constitutes part-time provision. In a recent High Court case—I believe that it involved Lewisham—it was contended that nursery education was provided on a daily basis. Even if it was provided for only a part of each day or if pupils attended only part time, that constituted full-time provision. It appears that full-time, but not part-time, nursery education will be funded by the funding agency, with the cost to be recovered from the LEA.
There are five possible policies, and I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about which policy, or which combination of policies, will be adopted.

Mr. Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great danger that if a local education authority, particularly a Conservative one, finds that its schools have opted out and it no longer controls education in its area other than nursery education, that authority might provide no nursery education? It could be that the only local authorities providing nursery provision will be those controlled by the Labour party, which already has an excellent record on nursery provision.

Mr. Rathbone: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a risk of that happening. However, his comments about Conservative-controlled education authorities is incorrect. He need only to refer to the Hansard Committee report to see the clear description of the marvellous job done by the Conservative authority in Wandsworth.
To return to my first points: first, clarification is needed on the role of the funding agency and the funding council for Wales in relation to nursery education. Secondly, if grant-maintained schools, through the funding agency, are to be funded for full-time nursery education, clarification is needed about what constitutes full-time provision and what constitutes part-time provision in respect of the common funding formula.
Thirdly, if the funding agency is to be responsible for funding nursery education, it will be important to ensure that its membership includes at least one experienced early teaching specialist.
Fourthly, and crucially, there is a need to safeguard the ability of the LEA to locate nursery provision where it is most needed. If grant-maintained schools are able to demand new nurseries, local education authorities will effectively have to fund those by losing money from their standard spending assessment, which will be re-routed through the funding agency to the grant-maintained school. That would have an impact on the LEA's ability to fund its own nurseries on a continuing basis.
Fifthly, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require inter-authority recoupment on under-five pre-school provision. I hope that he will use that provision. I should welcome clarification on those matters.

Mr. Enright: The Secretary of State said that the Bill was of straightforward simplicity, but that phrase should be properly interpreted. It is a Bill of downright naivety,


which illustrates the Government's problems as they panic instead of considering and understanding the causes of anxiety, and acting to resolve them.
I took the trouble to look at the Government's history on education Acts. There was the Education Act 1979, the Education Act 1980, the Education Act 1981, and further legislation on education in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, but the Government still did not have it right. Therefore, in 1986 they introduced three education Bills that became the Education Act 1986, the Education (Amendment) Act 1986 and the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): There is a consistency.

Mr. Enright: The Government were not consistent as, thereafter, they gave up as there were a few other semi-important pieces of legislation such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the poll tax legislation. Therefore, we had a couple of years without anything until, in 1988, we had the great Education Reform Act, but still the Government had not got it right. They would have been far better advised to sit down in 1979 and appoint a royal commission on education so that we could find the best way forward.
The Secretary of State's problem is that he has no underlying philosophy or principles to guide him as to what should be done in education. The Secretary of State should be like Lochinvar leading forth the teachers and the educational world into a new age. Instead, he behaves much more like the first world war generals, who stayed behind and shot soldiers in the rear as they went forward. The Secretary of State cannot distinguish between tactics and strategy or between the purpose of war and the actions required to win the war.
The Secretary of State referred to the 1944 Act, and gave me credit for new clause 22. I am grateful to him for that, but, alas, the words with which he chose to replace the 1944 Act were wrong, as, indeed, was his interpretation of the Act. The Secretary of State clearly said that it refers only to LEAs, but it does not. It refers to a tripartite arrangement between schools, local education authorities and the Secretary of State for Education. It is a tragedy that it was abolished. The 1944 Act showed that the authorities knew the distinction between being progressive and being effective, and they honed their weapons accordingly. They knew of the desire for the varied as well as for the comprehensive. They knew of the duty of a local education authority to stimulate the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of all pupils. All that is wiped out by new clause 22—tossed aside in an effort to satisfy the Secretary of State's megalomania.
New clause 22 emphasises and underlines the Secretary of State's power. He is to take to himself the task of monitoring standards. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that by their deeds shall ye know them. The Secretary of State is to monitor standards. What a track record he has, on the way in which English in particular has been introduced. It is absurd to suggest for one moment that illiteracy can be removed by looking at gobbets from "The Importance of Being Earnest". It is a means, but one must make sure that the proper resources are there.
The Secretary of State talks of encouraging diversity, at a time when he is squeezing out syllabus subjects such as classics and imposing syllabuses that are so prescriptive that Hitler and Stalin would have looked upon the right hon. Gentleman proudly as an heir to their tradition. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lenin?"] Lenin would not have looked at the right hon. Gentleman in that way—Lenin never looked at anyone in that sort of way.
If the Secretary of State wants to withdraw some of the prescriptions that he is putting in the various syllabuses, I should welcome it, but every act of this Secretary of State has shown that he wants to act as a dictator—that he knows best and that no one else can contribute advice that he will take.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman defend the practice of many left-leaning teachers, who believe that rap music is an appropriate subject to be studied in English lessons? Would he not prefer the works of Oscar Wilde, such as "The Importance of Being Earnest"? Does he not agree that is the right recipe for children to learn good English?

Mr. Enright: What an extraordinary statement. Teachers in any school know best what will fire the imagination and enthusiasm of their pupils. They use a whole variety of methods to stimulate their pupils—as I did. To help my pupils discover what the optative and subjunctive are all about, I translated Beatles songs into Latin—which would no doubt be to the fury of the hon. Gentleman, but it contributed to effective teaching. Many teachers do the same and it is wholly absurd of the hon. Gentleman to ridicule teachers who are working effectively at the chalk face, at a job which he could never do.
The Secretary of State talks of giving increased choice, but what increased opportunities for choice do pupils have—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Enright: I will do so when I have finished making this point, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman has only just strolled—I nearly said the wrong word—into the Chamber.
The Secretary of State deliberately refused choice to 16-year-olds of the equivalent of the baccalaureate, thereby reducing their choices at 18-plus. I give way to the decorously dressed hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a classicist myself with first-class honours, I should be interested to hear a rendition of a Beatles song, with all the words in English translated into Latin by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Enright: Certainly.
Habitamus sub vitreo,
Sub vitreo,
Sub vitreo"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know its rules full well.

Mr. Enright: I apologise unreservedly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I could not resist the hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge.
New clause 22 is totally inadequate to achieve the aims that we have for our children and the philosophy that the Opposition adopt towards improving education standards


not just for the few but for all our children. That means increasing the power of their imagination. That is what we should be examining, and it is that which the Secretary of State consistently curbs by his actions.

Mrs. Angela Knight: The importance of new clause 22 is that it acknowledges that we have a changed system, in which more schools are going grant maintained—which I welcome. The 650 schools that have already voted for GM status are just a drop in the ocean. Many more are considering that course. One reason is the continuing antics of many local education authorities—antics that do not serve well the schools in their areas.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I can tell my hon. Friend that a conference in Birmingham within the next two weeks on grant-maintained schools has been oversubscribed by no fewer than 35 schools, who are desperate to be free of the control of appalling Labour local authorities.

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend's intervention shows only too clearly how the momentum is gathering and that schools view GM status as the best option for serving the children in their areas.
In Derbyshire, many head teachers are most worried about the way in which the local authority is seeking to prejudice the education given in some schools by the way that it distributes funds. One head pointed out recently that some schools receive £1,600 per pupil, while others get as much as £2,400—a gap of £800. He adds, most eloquently:
If one examines the surpluses left over at the end of the year, it indicates the enormous differences and unfairnesses in the Derbyshire system. The council is quite blatantly failing in its duty to fund schools according to their needs.
That is an example of the way that some education authorities are choosing not to provide schools with the funds that they require. The importance of grant-maintained schools is that they are funded according to their needs.

Ms. Estelle Morris: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about funding inequalities within an LEA area, will she comment on the situation in Birmingham, where four grant-maintained schools have been given half a million pounds between them, whereas the other 500 schools have been given only £6 million between them all? Does the hon. Lady consider that the Secretary of State acted equitably in the way that he distributed money between Birmingham schools?

Mrs. Knight: I understand that the hon. Lady is referring to capital allocations. If the schools make a good case, they will be funded. If they fail to do so, they will not be funded. The hon. Lady will find that many LEAs, including mine—and, I suspect, hers as well—have not given their schools the finances that they need, because those authorities have chosen to spend their capital elsewhere. I urge the hon. Lady to tell Birmingham city council that it is imperative that it spends more of its capital on schools. That authority is notorious for underfunding every school in its area. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not make that point in her intervention.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who was conspicuous by her absence in Committee. She said that, in her view, the Bill was intent on abolishing local education authorities. That

is a travesty of what the Bill is about; its purpose is to allow parents to choose what is best for their children, for the school that their children attend and for the community. It is not about the Department saying this and the LEA saying that; it is about parents being able to make independent decisions about schools. That is a fundamental part of raising standards. It must be recognised that it is a movement which is continuing throughout the country, and that changes must be made in institutions to accommodate it.
Earlier speakers cited the Association of County Councils as an authority which did not support the Bill. In a letter to me, the association said that it welcomed the Government's present policies for education, and this Bill. It said:
In particular, we are pleased to see the continuing drive for higher standards in schools, more open accountability to parents, greater day-to-day managerial independence for schools of all kinds, the merger of the bodies responsible for the curriculum and for its assessment, and stronger governing bodies.
That, surely, is evidence of the association's support for the Bill.
It is interesting to note that the Church, too, now wishes to swell the number of grant-maintained schools. I recall reading an article that stated that one in four bishops is privately in favour of schools opting out of LEA control, and is promoting it in the primary and secondary schools within his jurisdiction. That is very good news, and it provides support for the Government's policies.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) produced a long list of education Bills that have been presented to the House. That shows the importance that Conservative Members ascribe to education: it is proof of this party's willingness to grasp the fact that education is one of the most important and fundamental issues, and to ensure that children receive the best possible education.
I particularly welcome the diversity and choice that are now springing up throughout the country, even in Labour-controlled areas. If an area contains both grant-maintained and LEA schools, choice is provided. Previous Acts of Parliament have removed the artificial restrictions placed on school numbers; now, parents can choose more widely. The city technology college movement is another aspect of the increased choice and diversity that are now available.
I believe that education is a fundamental issue of our times. If we fail children while they are at school, it will be very difficult for them to catch up later. New clause 22 recognises that change has taken place, and that greater changes will follow in the coming years. It is surprising that the Opposition should oppose it: it is a Luddite—indeed, an ostrich—approach to say that local education authorities are the only possible providers of education. Why should that be so? If I must trust someone with responsibility for education, I prefer to trust parents—and the grant-maintained system is all about trusting parents' choice.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I hope that the new clause will be opposed, for a simple reason: it is fundamental to the drift of Conservative education policy. It starkly demonstrates the way in which power is being concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State. It does not give power to schools, governors or parents; it gives power to the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Education. It represents one of the most dramatic


extensions of Whitehall power since 1945. The wholesale nationalisation of our education service will not lead to greater diversity; all our experience clearly shows that nationalisation, and the dead hand of Whitehall, lead to a uniform system up and down the country, rather than the diversity that the Government pretend to favour.
Choice will be denied to parents, for a simple reason. There is a paradox at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of new clause 22. On the one hand, the Secretary of State argues in favour of extending parental choice; on the other, because of Treasury pressure, he must remove hundreds of thousands of surplus places from the education system. It is impossible to reconcile the removal of such a large number of surplus places with the extension of parental choice. Parents in Hillingdon and Bromley, where the grant-maintained sector is up and running, are experiencing less choice as a result of the Government's policies.
The new clause repeals an important provision in the 1944 Act—the provision that refers to a partnership in the delivery of education services. The new clause allows the Secretary of State power to dictate to the various bodies involved, whether they are local education authorities or funding agencies. That is power without responsibility. It would bad enough to give such a power to any Secretary of State; it is even worst to give it to the present Secretary of State, who runs away from arguments, fears debate and is scared of questions. He is the Scarlet Pimpernel of the education world: they seek him here, they seek him there, but we all know that they will never find him at an education conference. He runs away from his critics, and, as a result, our children suffer.
In the introduction to the White Paper, the Secretary of State quoted John Ruskin. Let me refer him to another Ruskin quote, which I feel is appropriate to the way in which he speaks from the Dispatch Box. Ruskin wrote:
Conceit may puff a man up but it can never prop him up." I think that the Secretary of State has much to learn from that.
Even the right hon. Gentleman's friends are now turning against him. The education editor of The Daily Telegraph writes that he is "Aloof, ineffectual, almost invisible", and continues:
his performance is beginning to provoke derision among his enemies and cause concern to his friends. His report card says he contributes little to discussion in class, lacks initiative, does not do his homework".
The new clause is a blow to local democracy. It will destroy the partnership established in the Education Act 1944. It does nothing to raise standards, improve quality, extend opportunity or provide greater parental choice. Our children and our nation deserve better.

Mr. George Walden: I welcome the new clause as I welcome the Bill. Far from doing what the hon. member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and other members of the Opposition parties have alleged, the new clause will introduce a more equitable distribution of powers between the Government and the councils—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order 15 December) and Resolution this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 238.

Division No. 164]
[6 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Tony
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trend, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Whittingdale, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wilkinson, John


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wolfson, Mark


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Dr. Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Tony





Blunkett, David
Harvey, Nick


Boateng, Paul
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyce, Jimmy
Henderson, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoey, Kate


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Burden, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Byers, Stephen
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cryer, Bob
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Leighton, Ron


Dafis, Cynog
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davidson, Ian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Alice


Enright, Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Milburn, Alan


Fraser, John
Miller, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom






Pickthall, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Spellar, John


Pope, Greg
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wallace, James


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question necessary to bring to a decision the Question so proposed.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question, That all new clauses standing in the name of a member of the Government, be added to the Bill.

New clause 20

LOANS TO GOVERNING BODIES OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

'.—(1) The appropriate authority may make loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in respect of expenditure of any class or description specified in regulations (referred to in this section as "loan regulations") incurred or to be incurred by the governing bodies for or in connection with such purposes as may be so specified.

(2) Any loan under this section shall be made on such terms as loan regulations may require, being terms specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations.

(3) Where any sum is payable by the governing body of a grant-maintained school to the appropriate authority in respect of the principal of, or interest on, any loan under this section, the appropriate authority may (without prejudice to any other mode of recovery) recover the whole or any part of that sum by deducting it from any grant payable by them to the governing body.

(4) In this section, the "appropriate authority"—

(a) in relation to England before the Funding Agency for Schools begin to exercise their functions, and
(b) in relation to Wales before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions,

means the Secretary of State and, in any other case, means the funding authority

(5) The funding authority shall exercise any power conferred on them by this section in such manner (if any) as may be specified in or determined in accordance with loan regulations.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 26

EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS OF AUDIT COMMISSION

'.—(1) Section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (extension of functions of Audit Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) At the beginning of subsection (1)(c) there is inserted "the Funding Agency for Schools, the Schools Funding Council for Wales or".

(3) After subsection (2)(bb) there is inserted—

"(bc) with respect to studies relating to the Funding Agency for Schools, the agency;
(bd) with respect to studies relating to the Schools Funding Council for Wales, the council".

(4) In subsection (2)(c) after "school," there is inserted "the funding authority or".'—[Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27

FUNDING AUTHORITIE: COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND

'. In section 17(4) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (statutory undertakers) after paragraph (a) of the definition of "statutory undertakers" there is inserted—

"(aa) the Funding Agency for Schools,
(ab) the Schools Funding Council for Wales".'—[ Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 28

APPROVAL OF PREMISES OF MAINTAINED OR GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

'.—(1) Where a body serve under section 169(6) of this Act notice of proposals for the establishment of a school which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs, they shall submit to the Secretary of State the particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school mentioned in subsection (3) below.

(2) Where a body serve under section 169(6) of this Act notice of proposals for making a prescribed alteration to a special school, they shall if the Secretary of State so directs submit to him the particulars in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school mentioned in subsection (3) below.

(3) The particulars are—

(a) particulars of the provision made or to be made in respect of the means of access to and within the premises or proposed premises of the school, and
(b) such other particulars in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school as the Secretary of State may require,

and they shall be submitted at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) The particulars submitted under subsection (3)(a) above shall indicate the extent to which the provision referred to conforms with the minimum requirements, so far as they are relevant to school premises, of—

(a) Design Note 18 "Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings" published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State, or
(b) if that Note has been replaced by a document prescribed by regulations made or having effect as if made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that document.

(5) Particulars submitted under this section in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school require the approval of the Secretary of State.

(6) Where any proposals falling within subsection (1) or (2) above are required to be implemented, they shall be implemented in accordance with any particulars approved under this section.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

GRANTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF AIDED AND SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS

' .—(1) The Secretary of State may—

(a) in the case of any aided school or special agreement school, or
(b) where proposals have been approved under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 (establishment etc. of voluntary schools) for a school or proposed school to be maintained as a voluntary school and the Secretary of State has made an order under section 15 of the Education Act 1944 (classification of schools) directing that the school be an aided school,

make grants to the governing body in respect of expenditure falling within subsection (2) below incurred by them.

(2) The expenditure referred to in subsection (1) above is expenditure in respect of the provision, alteration or repair of premises or equipment for the school or proposed school.

(3) The amount of any grant paid under this section to the governing body in respect of any such expenditure—

(a) shall not exceed 85 per cent. of the expenditure, and
(b) in the case of any prescribed class or description of such expenditure, shall be such as may be determined in accordance with regulations.

(4) The times at which, and the manner in which, payments are made in respect of grant under this section shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State.

(5) A governing body to whom any payment is made in respect of grant under this section shall comply with such requirements determined by the Secretary of State as he may from time to time impose.

(6) Such requirements—

(a) may be imposed on or at any time after the making of any payment by reference to which they are imposed, and
(b) may at any time be waived, removed or varied by the Secretary of State.

(7) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the Secretary of State of the whole or any part of the following amount.

(8) That amount is—

(a) the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant under this section, or
(b) so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which grant was paid under this section as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant,

whichever is the greater.

(9) No grant may be paid under this section—

(a) in respect of any expenses incurred in the provision of any premises which it is the duty of the local education authority to provide, or
(b) in the case of a special agreement school, in respect of expenses incurred in the execution of proposals to which the special agreement relates or of repairs or alterations for the execution of which provision is made by the agreement.

(10) In relation to a proposed school, the references in this section to the governing body, in relation to any time before such a body is constituted, are to the persons who propose to

establish the school; and where requirements are imposed in relation to grant paid under this section to such persons, the governing body, when it is constituted, as well as those persons shall comply with the requirements.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have an announcement to make. Madam Speaker earlier today undertook to look again at amendments 98 and 99 to clause 156. In view of the explanation of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) of the intention about amendment No. 97, Madam Speaker is now prepared to allow amendments Nos. 98 and 99 to be debated in the same group. This debate will be reached after the guillotine at 10 pm in the group that is led by amendment No. 4:2 to clause 148.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerning new clause 19 and amendment No. 56. These are a new clause and an amendment, in the alternative, which would allow those children whose parents have a special view about the effect of sex education the right to opt out of the lessons at school, and for those matters to be taught within the family. This affects not only the Plymouth Brethren but also a number of other children in respect of whom—I will leave that. I ask that Madam Speaker reconsider the selection of this new clause and/or the amendment because this affects many children throughout the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that Madam Speaker has very seriously considered her selection and no doubt she will have taken those points into consideration when she made her decision. The Speaker has decided the selection and I can say no more.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does that mean that if matters and issues are not considered, and they are of great importance, once a selection is made it can never be altered? We had representations a little while ago which led to an alteration in the selection. I merely ask that the Speaker reconsider the position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Member well knows, representations can be made at the proper time. I am sure he will do that.

New clause 1

MUSIC AND LIBRARY PROVISION

'.—(1) A local education authority may for the purpose only of assisting the governing bodies of maintained or grant-maintained schools in their area or any other area in the performance of the governing bodies' power to provide music tuition and library facilities supply goods or services to them.

(2) This section is without prejudice to the generality of any other power of local education authorities to supply goods or services.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 14—Provision of assistance with music—



'.—(1) A local education authority may for the purpose only of assisting the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, or grant-maintained special schools, in their area in the performance of the functions mentioned in subsection (2) below, supply goods or services to them.
(2) This subsection applies to—

(a) teaching and assessment of music in accordance with the national curriculum, and
(b) tuition of registered pupils in playing any musical instrument (where such tuition is not provided individually).

(3) This section is without prejudice to the generality of any other power of local education authority to supply goods or services.
(4) In this section "national curriculum" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988.'.

Government amendment No. 126.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State has decided to absent himself from the Chamber yet again. It seems that he is interested in this Bill only when it gives him more powers and not when it affects the education of millions of children.
I start by explaining that we have given priority to the issues in new clause 1—music provision and the future of library services—because we think that these issues should have a high priority and are causing great concern outside this House among all those involved in education. I cannot believe that, on this important issue, Ministers will not be willing to think again.
During the Committee stage, which was subject to the guillotine, we managed to protect one morning's sitting to debate what was then clause 244 dealing with the services which local authorities could provide in future to grant-maintained schools. One sitting was not enough to express all our fears; that is one reason why we have chosen to come back to this subject this evening.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so early in her speech, but she referred to the introduction of the guillotine. I heard her speaking eloquently on the BBC this morning. I wonder whether, when these debates are over, she will look at the recommendations in the second report of the Procedure Committee, dealing with procedure in Standing Committee. She will find that, if that had become part of the procedures of the House, the objections she has been making to the guillotine could well have been overcome, because the members of the Committee themselves would have decided how to use its time to debate every part of the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I think that there is some substance in what he says. I have always resisted the idea of automatic guillotines on Bills, but there is much attraction in the prospect of a special Committee before going on to consider a Bill, and I am willing to think about that idea. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has made a study of the matter, and I appreciate his comments.
In Committee, I moved the amendment to what was then clause 244 in what I hoped was a non-confrontational way, because I wanted to reflect the concerns of people in various political parties about the Government's proposals. Partly because of that, I was genuinely amazed

and disappointed at the Ministers' response and at that of some, although perhaps not all, Conservative members of the Committee.
Ministers did not use the opportunity fully to explain their thinking on clause 244, which in the reprinted Bill is now clause 257. In view of what Ministers said at the time, I can conclude only that they do not comprehend the full impact of their own legislation, especially on the provision of music and on the future of the school library service.
We shall be able to debate clause 257 in detail tomorrow. It provides a time limit for the provision of services by local education authorities to grant-maintained schools. New clause 1 seeks to exempt music and school library services from the general provisions of clause 257. Those are not our only concerns about the clause—we shall wish to discuss other matters tomorrow —but they are the two major concerns. I hope that Conservative Members will pause and give some thought to the full implications of the clause if it goes through unamended. Perhaps they will consider that the way forward suggested in new clause 1 will be beneficial for all concerned.
We have two major worries about what might happen if our new clause is not accepted. I am sure that Ministers and Conservative Members, like Opposition Members, have received many representations on the subject. The concerns have ranged over a wide variety of issues. Some local authorities are worried about the continuation of their own services.
Perhaps the aspect that should appeal to Conservative Members most is that, in future, grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to buy the services they choose from wherever they choose. The Government propose that local education authority schools may use or not use local authority services, according to their own choice. However, grant-maintained schools will not have that choice. They will have to rely on the private sector, whether or not the private sector can provide the services required.
I cannot see any circumstances in which the private sector will move in to provide a school library service such as that provided by many local authorities. It is impossible to conceive of the private sector being able to provide the service on the scale that presently exists in many local authority areas. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that, in Durham, the school library service had assets, and owned books and equipment, worth £2 million a year. I do not think that the private sector will come in with that sort of money in the hope of being able to make money out of schools wanting to buy its services.
My other concern is that if fewer schools use local authority services the provision of those services to local authority schools, too, may be threatened. That is less likely to happen in Labour-controlled authorities than in Conservative-controlled authorities, because grant-maintained schools are more common in Conservative authorities. Indeed, Tory Kent and Tory Essex have more grant-maintained schools than exist in all Labour authorities put together. So it is in those areas that the pressure for the maintenance of music services and school library services for pupils in local authority schools will come first.
I said that my hon. Friends and I had received many representations on those issues. I do not want to go into them all in detail, because that would take too long, and


I know that my hon. Friends want to raise specific points, but I shall quote from a letter that Larry Westland, the director of Music for Youth, wrote to all hon. Members:
The superlative standards reached by our young musicians, youth orchestras and choirs is one of the United Kingdom's greatest educational achievements.
My hon. Friends and I concur, and we appreciate the work that Music for Youth has done over the years. Larry Westland went on:
The Education Bill will, I believe, bring about a diminution in the quality and range of this aspect of music teaching".
What Larry Westland says is just one indication of the whole range of concerns expressed by people outside the House about what will happen in the future. Today I received a letter from the Centre for Young Musicians, which used to be funded by the Inner London education authority; the London boroughs now pay the tuition fees. The Centre for Young Musicians is worried that the allocation of funds to grant-maintained schools will pose future problems for it, and will mean that it will not be able to provide tuition to students irrespective of their financial means, as it has done hitherto.
I know that Conservative Members share some of that concern about the future of music. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) agrees. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), too, expressed some reservations in Committee. I must admit that he and I went to the schools prom together, so I know that he appreciates the musical work of many young people. Following the hon. Gentleman's remarks in Committee, the Minister circulated a letter which tried to allay some of the fears by saying that there could be co-operation over a wider area with orchestras containing pupils from both grant-maintained schools and local authority schools, and other similar arrangements.
However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be misled by the Minister's letter. The issue is wider than that. Larry Westland's letter which I quoted also says that, although the national curriculum may provide for some basic music education, there is no requirement whatever for instrumental tuition or specialist vocal tuition to be provided. If the music service in an area were broken up,that could lead only to a reduction in the amount of tuition available.
If the Secretary of State manages to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will show that his concerns on the matter are genuine. I hope that he, and perhaps other Conservative Members, will consider voting with us on this new clause.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I want to speak briefly, and to confine my remarks entirely to the subject of music.
I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter, and he knows my concerns. In writing to him, I was merely reflecting the widespread concern of a great many of my constituents. It has been a long time since I have received so many letters on a single subject as I have on the Staffordshire music service. It is a service of high excellence and one which is held in high repute by people not simply in Staffordshire but throughout the country.
Those constituents who have written to me are fairly enthusiastic, for the most part, and they are certainly not

opposed to the idea of grant-maintained status. However, we have had three ballots in my constituency which have gone emphatically—two of them very emphatically—against grant-maintained status. From the correspondence I have received, I believe that one of the reasons—it is only one, and I would say that it is not the most important one, because the campaign has been rather a political one—which has certainly moved many of those who would normally vote with alacrity for grant-maintained status has been the fact that they have felt that the music service is under threat.
I should like a reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister. Frankly, as I said in my letters, what he has said up until now has not been convincing enough. Of course I fully accept that it will be possible to buy in services. I also accept that it is conceivable that some organisation might come into being which can provide musical services of quality and distinction. However, nothing that my lion. Friend has said in his letters has convinced me of the likelihood—as distinct from the possibility—of that.
Conservative Members should always be concerned to conserve what is good. The music service in Staffordshire is not only good but excellent. Over the past few years, many young people have learnt to master instruments who would never have had that opportunity before. That knowledge and mastery has given them a new self-confidence, as such knowledge and mastery often does. Sometimes, they are not academically bright children. It also gives them the opportunity to work and play in the best sense with others, and to come together across a county.
Only two years ago, the county took over the Royal Albert hall. Parents came from all over the county and —although, sadly, I could not be there—it was by all accounts a most magnificent and moving occasion. It is something which those young people will never forget.
In my constituency, I have a number of school bands and orchestras which are good, partly because young people have the opportunity to play in bigger groups and therefore to rub shoulders with those who may be more proficient than they are. They may also learn from those who may in some degree be more accomplished than the teachers in their own schools. That countywide cross-fertilisation—if I can put it that way—has helped to build up the tremendous reputation which the music service in Staffordshire rightly enjoys.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I fully support the concept of grant-maintained schools. My concern relates to the quality of the Staffordshire music service and to its survival. I ask the Minister not to do anything which will put that service in jeopardy. Until now, neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, nor anyone else, has convinced either the parents or me that we have an answer in the Bill. Perhaps the answer is to change the present music service into a trust. The Minister referred to a trust in one of his letters.
For goodness' sake, the Government should keep the service, the people, and those who have brought the service into being. They should not simply say, "It can happen. It might happen." They should take positive action to ensure that it does happen.
This matter is much more important to the young people involved and their parents than any doctrinal difference which might separate us across the Floor of the


House. Music is a great unifying force. It brings people out of themselves. It is a language which transcends so many barriers.
Some years ago, I had the privilege of being involved in the establishment of the music therapy charity. One saw at first hand and in a most moving way how those who are often severely disadvantaged can, through music, reach out to goals which they never thought they could attain. Although this centralising Bill—one must say that it is a centralising Bill—may have many fine and good things in it, and although I do not for a moment doubt the total integrity of the Secretary of State and all my ministerial colleagues, and their genuine desire—which we all share—to see the education services in this country not only preserved but made even better, I tell my hon. Friend that the Staffordshire music service is at risk.
I hope that the Minister will take that on board and realise that something must be done to allay the fears of parents in my constituency, throughout Staffordshire and—I am sure—in other parts of the country. I hope that he will undertake to re-examine how such excellence can be preserved in a new era and in new circumstances, so that, whatever label the schools bear which children will go to next year, the year after and in the year 2000, there will still be an opportunity for collective music-making and collective excellence across the country.
The Bill still has quite a way to go. There is another place in which there are many people who are well versed in the matters which we are talking about. Those people have high qualifications and great eminence. When the Bill comes back from another place, I hope that this specific point will have been fully, properly and competently addressed. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine the matter, because I am sure that he would not like to go on record as one of those who assisted, however unwittingly, in the demise of a service of great excellence and high repute.

Mr. Steinberg: The object of the new clause is to ensure that the schools library facilities and music service are available to all schools, whether they are local education authority maintained or grant maintained. School library facilities and music services require special treatment in the Bill. I believe that they are different from other support services in that they provide a service which is specifically educational. They are not simply providers of goods or administrative support.
I should like to examine specifically the role of the schools library service. School library services are usually run either by the public library service as an agent of the local education authority or directly by the education authority itself. They support the work of the library and information services in primary, secondary and even special schools. Schools library services will typically provide a book exchange scheme for schools, a project loans scheme to support projects undertaken within schools, an advisory service on all aspects of school library management and use, training for teachers in information handling skills and work in schools to promote the enjoyment of reading.
Such services provide essential back-up to library and information services within schools. No individual school could hope to provide all the learning resources necessary to support the curriculum. The schools library service

provides a network of professional support for school librarians. Such services are highly commended in most HMI reports. On occasion the reports highlight that the schools library service is the only good thing about a school library.
I hope that the House will support the inclusion of new clause 1 in the Bill. I shall give local examples from the schools library service which my local authority of Durham provides for schools in Durham. The service is known as Durham Learning Resources. It was formed by the amalgamation of the schools library service and the museums education service. It is managed and operated by the arts, libraries and museums department as part of the strategy for serving children within the authority. The costs of the service are re-charged to the education department. The purpose of the service is to give teachers access to materials to support the national curriculum. The materials either supplement the school's resources or are provided in a quantity or quality which the school cannot obtain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) quoted the information that I had given to her in Committee. Last year the local authority's learning resources service lent almost £2 million of stock to schools in the Durham county area. If that service was not available, what would schools lose? We have to remember that at present no school in Durham has opted out. I hope that none will. However, one or two may opt out in the near future.
If the children in an opted-out school did not have access to the local authority schools library services, they would lose information books. About 25,000 books are kept centrally by Durham county council to enhance the national curriculum. They would lose fiction books. The service has a huge supply of wall charts, picture packs and slides. It has "spoken word" tapes, which is a range of 300 children's stories to stimulate children who have reading difficulties.
The service has a wide collection of almost 3,000 objects, including natural history specimens, geological specimens and costumes from the 19th and 20th century. 1 could go on and on. All those items are available to the schools in the county. If grant-maintained schools were not allowed to use that service, they would not have the benefit of the articles kept centrally by Durham county council. The service keeps about 4,000 works of art, originals and reproductions, and lends them to schools. If grant-maintained schools were created in Durham, after two years they would not be allowed to borrow such items.
The HMI report which was released recently showed that libraries within schools are badly off. The Book Trust report "Books in Schools" highlighted the importance of reading ability in relation to overall educational attainment. It opened with the statement:
Rarely have so many pupils had so few books.
The majority of schools do not have adequate library facilities. The school of which I was the head teacher was sadly without a good library simply because books were so expensive that one could not buy them. One had to concentrate on other important items that were needed. The school library was particularly run down. However, I always knew that I had the back-up of the central schools library service. Periodically the staff and I went to county hall and took away literally thousands of books for use within the school.
6.45 pm
What would be the alternatives for grant-maintained schools if they could not take advantage of the schools library service? They would have to operate independently. That would involve huge expense. It has been estimated that such schools would need at least £12,000 per year to develop library resources. That would not include the cost of staff to run the library. If they could not afford to buy the resources, they would have to go to the local library. It would be virtually impossible for a local library to provide the number of books that all the schools in the area would need. Local libraries are too small. They could not stock the range and quantity that would be required.
No other agency, public or private, has established comprehensive collections of resources to support the curriculum. It would require capital investment of about £500,000 to start such a collection. We all know that that figure is too high for any private organisation. There is no evidence to show that the private sector could provide an alternative service in all areas. The private sector has shown little interest in providing public library services where tenders have been invited.
The intention of new clause 1 is to give governors the right to use the local eduation authority schools library service and music service, whether the school is grant maintained or an LEA school. That would ensure that all pupils had access to their full entitlement of library and music services.
I support the new clause with total conviction. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so stubborn on the issue. It seems to be purely vindictiveness. I cannot see any political or sound educational reason for preventing grant-maintained schools from using LEA services. I can see only the Government's vindictive attitude to local education authorities. The Government's proposal would disadvantage the very children whom the Government say that they want to help—children in grant-maintained schools. I cannot understand it. I am baffled that the Government expect grant-maintained schools to thrive throughout the country yet deprive them of a valuable service which the local education authority can provide.
If the new clause is not included in the Bill, it will prove once and for all without a shadow of doubt that the Bill is nothing to do with improving standards of education for children but is simply a vindictive and hostile move against local education authorities. At the end of the day the children are the ones who will suffer.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the library route. I believe that grant-maintained schools already have a good record on spending on books. Spending has risen and is above average in those schools. So I have more confidence on the issue of library services. I should like to concentrate on music, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am worried about what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Does he suggest that each school could be self-sufficient in not only books but articles such as works of art and artefacts, which schools library

services can provide? That was the implication of his suggestion that some schools were doing well on books. The debate is about more than books.

Mr. Bowis: I was not suggesting that at all. I was simply saying that we should acknowledge that they already have a good record on spending on books. Of course, the issue of libraries and book provision goes wider than that. The facilities exist and schools have the option to take up existing and future services and I am confident that they will do so.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, I shall concentrate on music. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to the fact that she and I occasionally went to a concert together. I hope that that will not damage her reputation. While we are in confession mode, perhaps I should also confess to having been brought up with Larry Westland's wife. Although we could make many confessions, the only one I wish to put on record is a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the board of the South Bank which plays host to much of the youth and schools music to which we are referring, not least Larry Westland's festival of youth music at the Festival hall and the annual schools proms at the Albert hall.
I know that Larry Westland shares some of my concerns. He would be the first to say that there are plenty of opportunities and I know that he is looking for ways around the problems. He is seeking to get together with the Government and those in the music profession to find ways of ensuring that music education continues. Although the letter that he has sent to hon. Members reflects his concern about existing provision, we have to ensure that the excellent provision in some areas is extended to all parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury asked whether I would be supporting the new clause. My answer will have to be no because it does not address the problem that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee and shall repeat today. The new clause may even exclude a solution. It talks about the local education authority giving support and assistance for music tuition and to the teaching of music in accordance with the national curriculum. However, it does not refer to the establishment, nurturing and expansion of the orchestras, bands and choirs which produce the great joy of the music festivals to which I have referred. The new clause specifies
the purpose only of assisting governing bodies
with specific tuition, so I do not think that it will help.
We need constantly to examine the problem of ensuring the future of what have become great orchestras. The schools prom involves a range of ages and backgrounds. There is everything from full-scale, top-quality county youth orchestras to bands from local schools for children with special educational needs. Those children are showing what they can achieve—perhaps we should call them special educational achieving bands—and they are particularly moving. I seek to find ways to preserve and conserve those opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has gone a long way towards seeking solutions. The hon. Lady referred to one letter about partnerships between maintained schools and grant-maintained schools, but, as he promised in Committee, he has looked further. On 4 February, in response to the points I raised, he referred to:


an issue that he and I might examine in the future—section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 February 1993; c. 1374.]
I am grateful to him for looking into the matter. Indeed the Local Government Act 1972 does provide a way through. Section 145(1)(c) provides that it is possible for local authorities, as opposed to local education authorities, to make provisions within or outwith their own local authority area. I asked whether they could spend money on pupils from outside the local authority area. Section 145 makes it clear that they can, and paragraph (c) refers specifically to bands and orchestras and presumably applies to choirs.
Local government authorities are already looking for ways through. The London Schools Symphony orchestra has found a solution. The hon. Lady referred to Kent which has some 18 music centres and the local authority is liaising with the Association of Rural Music Schools. My hon. Friend has established the facts to find a way to ensure the future of the excellent provision of music in rural areas, and I understand that Berkshire has set up a charitable trust.
I have two worries. First, what incentive is there for local authorities to take over the responsibility hitherto undertaken by local education authorities? In many cases it is the same authority, and that will apply more often as we move towards unitary authorities, but there are understandable concerns that those facilities should not be lost in the transfer of responsibilities. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend spoke to Ministers with responsibilities for local government to see what recommendations, guidance or steering can be provided by the Department of the Environment as well as directly through LEAs to stress that central Government looks to local government to continue such provision.
Secondly, at present if a county youth orchestra is set up and maintained by the county education committee schools can send students to play in the orchestra if they meet the required standard. I am concerned to ensure that there will be nothing to stop that continuing and that grant-maintained schools will be able to send pupils to participate. However, there is an implication that there will be some requirement on those schools to contribute towards the cost of the county youth orchestra in future. I am not yet convinced that those schools will have sufficient incentive to contribute to the county youth orchestra, particularly in a year when they have no students playing in the orchestra or band.
I ask my hon. Friend to continue to examine the issue as I know he has done in the past. I am grateful for the genuine way in which he has tackled the problems, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government and local government and those in the world of music must get it right because it is a precious asset in our cultural heritage.

7 pm

Ms. Armstrong: As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I intervene in the debate with some trepidation. I realise that hon. Members who were on the Committee are anxious to take part. However, I should like to make a brief contribution about the music service

in Durham, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) referred to the work that the library service does for schools in the county.
I have a group of children coming to London tomorrow to present a petition at 10 Downing street. The petition relates to their concern and that of their parents about the future of the music service in Durham. They realise that if the service is under threat there, it is under threat elsewhere, and they want to ensure that it is maintained.
I admire the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for talking about progress and development and I wish to goodness that serious thought were being given to those aspects. A great deal is threatened with destruction and must first be protected if we are to secure progress and development. If we cannot preserve what we have, we shall not be able to extend good practice and high quality. That distresses me.
We are told repeatedly that the Government are concerned about standards, yet when we have something of high quality they are content to ride rough-shod over it, such is their fixation that education should be dominated by market principles. Many hon. Members may not realise how difficult it is to run an orchestra on the basis simply of upholding individualism. The attitude that it is the individual that matters—and whether individual schools buy in—affects the ability of an orchestra and its members to work together. It may seem simplistic to say so, but we have to use simplistic language if we are to get Ministers to listen and to think about anything.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools visited the Durham music service in October. I am told that he was quite impressed and commended the work that was being done. A few weeks later I was at the school proms in the Royal Albert hall. Apart from anything else, that is an extremely enjoyable occasion, and for Members of Parliament such events are very few and far between these days. I wish that some Ministers had found time to attend. I understand that no Minister was present at the event last year or was able to go to the Festival hall this year or last. That demonstrates that Ministers are afraid to expose themselves to such quality experience. In their heart of hearts, they know that what they are doing threatens quality. Many people support what is currently being done by the music service. One is Eric Bolton, recently a chief inspector, and others have been mentioned.
I want to refer to some wider educational aspects. The Government seem to have lost sight of what education is about. It is not simply about the three Rs. It is true that if children do not acquire a grasp of the three Rs, many other things remain outside their understanding, but if education were about the three Rs only, we should have a very narrow and stultified group of young people emerging from the system. Music is one area in which many otherwise ordinary children excel. I have received from constituents letters indicating that they did not realise that their children had such qualities, as music was not important in their families. But many children have found ways of expressing talent and have become high flyers through music. The Government are putting that at risk.
In Durham, no one is expressing any interest in opted-out, grant-maintained schools. However, if such a development were to occur it would threaten the overall provision that the authority is able to make. In my constituency there are very small rural schools with only two or three teachers. The children there benefit from the


peripatetic music service. They have access to instruments and are able to go to group music sessions, leading to participation in county orchestras and bands. What the Government are doing will remove choice. Those children will be deprived of the opportunity of such involvement.
But it is more than a question of simple involvement in music. Children in very small schools may have exceptional talent. How are they to be given an opportunity to work and play with others of similar ability? That can be done only if the county is able to make the appropriate provision. If the Government honestly want to empower authorities, why are they removing the means whereby pupils can be enabled to participate on a wider basis? Why are the Government determined to remove that power?
There is no logic in the Government's attitude. The Minister knows that there are ways of maintaining this provision; but that would involve the enabling of local education authorities. The Government do not want to allow that, so they are adopting this vindictive attitude. We have heard a great deal about children and young people getting involved in nasty activities. Mr. Paul Haworth, a parent from the village in which my parents live, has written to me:
At a time when there is increasing concern about rising levels of crime and lawlessness among young people, it is short-sighted to take measures which could deprive many young people of the opportunity to take part in constructive activities which could not only enrich their own lives but also those of others. Where are future musicians to come from? Presumably, as a nation, we wish to have quality orchestras in the future. My own son is coming to the end of his school career but is willing to pass on his knowledge and expertise by helping younger musicians at his school. He does not get paid for this; it costs the school nothing; It costs the county nothing. It is one of those invisible spin-offs which do not appear on a balance sheet. Similar things happen in many schools. They cost nothing but have tremendous value. The present obsession with budgets and costs will destroy many valuable activities, but at the end of the day we will all count the cost.
I hope that the Minister will listen. I realise that he will not accept the new clause. Indeed, it is beyond the ability of the Government to accept anything that the Opposition put forward. However, I hope that the Minister will at least have the humility to accept that the Government have got it wrong this time. They have been unable to assure people that services such as music and libraries, particularly in counties like mine, where schools are often dispersed widely across the countryside, will be preserved. The children in small rural schools must be offered the same opportunities as are available to those in large, grant-maintained schools. They deserve our attention. The Minister has an obligation to secure for them the future of the peripatetic music service and other such services. I hope that, despite the Government's ideological approach, the Minister will agree to the introduction, in another place, of provisions to secure the future of the peripatetic music service in the county of Durham.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I add my voice to those heard tonight expressing anxiety about the future of the music service. I agree entirely with the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).
I speak as a London hon. Member who has experience of the extraordinarily good work of the Centre for Young

Musicians. It has provided truly excellent training and opportunities for London children from a variety of backgrounds to achieve extremely high standards. It has given them the experience of playing together in orchestras and bands. Only a fortnight ago I listened to a concert at the Blackheath concert halls given by three of the brass and wind ensembles of that organisation. They achieved remarkable standards. The house was packed and the occasion provided those children with important and valuable opportunities.
Skill of that quality is possible only because of co-operation between people over a wide area. The Centre for Young Musicians was a product of the Inner London education authority, which achieved considerable gains by bringing together people from throughout the London area to achieve what would not have been possible by the individual efforts of one borough.
When the ILEA was abolished, which many of us regretted bitterly, we felt that it was vital to retain the provision of bodies such as the Centre for Young Musicians. Lengthy negotiations took place, as a result of which a formula was established to allow that body to continue, with individual boroughs agreeing to meet the fees, along with a foundation for young musicians to provide financial support for the core services.
That worked for a while, but it is now under threat. Individual boroughs, including my borough of Greenwich, the budgets of which are threatened by the pressures on their standard spending assessments and the Government's capping legislation, have been forced to withdraw funding. That is proving a tragedy for many children in those areas. Other boroughs are again examining their funding of the Centre for Young Musicians. In Greenwich, other music projects have been put at risk as a result of budget cuts. No individual borough in London could possibly sustain the activity necessary to achieve the standards that have been achieved by the Centre for Young Musicians. If that is true for a borough, it is all the more true for individual schools.
We are witnessing the risk of fragmentation. One does not know how many schools will opt for grant-maintained status. There are few in those parts of London with which I am familiar. In other areas—for example, in the London borough of Wandsworth and a few others—a significant number have opted in favour. In Greenwich, little interest in the option has as yet been expressed by schools. But if the option develops and schools are taken outside the normal ambit of the local education authority so that they cannot opt into the joint provision of music service in a borough framework, the fragmentation of which I spoke will become more serious.
That will put at risk the continuation of the high standards that have been achieved and which hon. Members in all parts of the House have emphasised. All have said that high quality has been achieved and is at risk. So it is vital for the Government to listen to the voices that are being raised. They must think again about the matter.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause, which would provide a framework within which individual authorities could continue to provide music and library services to schools, be they grant maintained or otherwise. The clause would be logical, it would avoid the fragmentation to which I referred and it would help to maintain the unified service and the high quality of music education that has been achieved. But even if the Government will not accept the new clause, I hope that


they will think again about the implications for music education, not only in London, but throughout Britain, if that process of fragmentation is allowed to proceed.
In his White Paper which preceded the Bill, the Minister chose, rather curiously, to quote from John Ruskin's "Unto This Last". One of the most memorable phrases in that work—I fancy that it is not a quotation that the Secretary of State would wish to hear—runs:
Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition, the laws of death.
Co-operation in music has been the basis of achieving high standards in musical education. It is to be hoped that the Government will accept that continued co-operation on a wide scale, rather than anarchy and fragmentation, are the way forward. Otherwise, that high-quality service will be put at risk.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), I was not a member of the Committee, so I speak without the benefit of having been part of the discussion that preceded tonight's debate.
Coming to the debate afresh, I find it strange that a Government who claim to be committed to choice, competition and quality should be taking steps that will inhibit all of those. It will preclude choice for grant-maintained schools so that after two years they will not be able to choose from where they buy their services. What the Government propose will make it impossible for local authority library and music services to compete with the schemes and companies that are already being set up.
The Government say that they are keen on local authorities going into the market place and competing and trading. The Bill as drafted will prevent local authority services from trading their services to grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Forth: No.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister disputes what I say?

Mr. Forth: It is precisely because the Government are not keen on local authorities trading that the whole provision exists. The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round.

Mr. Fisher: The Government are keen on competitive tendering by local authorities.

Mr. Forth: That is not the same thing.

Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I should have referred to certain sorts of trading and various types of competing in the market place being considered desirable by the Government. If the Minister believes that the plural provision of music and library services is good, he is denying the sense of that by what he is proposing. Looking at the provision from the point of view of the Government, I am baffled. I do not understand their rationale. I trust the Minister will explain it when he replies to the debate.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Larry Westland. Most contributions to the debate have been about music services, and we are agreed that Mr. Westland has performed a superb service for the quality of music education and the enjoyment of music for 20 years or

more. I join the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in saying that going to the schools' proms and musical events at the South Bank and the Albert hall are among the most moving and enjoyable musical experiences. It is remarkably exciting to see such a range of young musicians achieving high standards and coming together to express their excitement.
We are speaking of children who in many cases have not been great achievers academically. They find in music a subject in which they can communicate well with others. The excitement of that communication comes across like electricity in their concerts at the Albert hall and the South Bank. If the Minister joins us in paying tribute to Mr. Westland—the country owes a considerable debt to him —he should heed Mr. Westland's warning, given from his experience of more than 20 years of working with young people and music, that the action of the Government in this matter is profoundly wrong. It puts at risk something that is extremely precious and probably, in European terms, unique about our education service. We have provided in Great Britain a quality of music education that is the envy of every other country. People come from all over the world—I am sure that the Minister understands this—to talk to music advisers in local authorities, to hear the music in our schools and to go to concerts like Mr. Westland's. They come here because of the traditions that have been built up.
As the hon. Member for Battesea (Mr. Bowis) said, geographically throughout the country there is still somewhat patchy provision, as indeed there is in every hon. Member's constituency. It is one of the most baffling and worrying aspects of education in each of our constituencies that one can go to one school in one constituency and find wonderful music education, everybody playing an instrument, very good singing, and excitement and a buzz in the air; then one goes to a school half a mile away in the same catchment area, and therefore the same range of natural ability in children, and almost nothing is happening. So the patchiness of provision is not only geographic, but also within each constituency.
That should give us cause for concern, but it should not distract us from the essential point that music education in this country is superb. It Mr. Westland is right, that we are putting it at risk with what the Government are doing, surely the Government ought to pause for thought. Surely they should talk more to people in both the public and the private sector in music, people like Mr. Westland and people in professional music as well, to see whether they are acting wisely.
Certainly, from what Mr. Westland has said and from what has been said on both sides of the House in this debate, there is a fear that what the Government are doing is a threat to the quality of teaching in grant-maintained schools as much as in other schools, and to the music services that local authorities provide. With that two-pronged threat, there will be a threat to music education generally.
The other thing that strikes me as curious about what the Government are doing is that it seems to be at odds with their own desire for music education in the national curriculum. Many of the provisions in the national curriculum are extremely good and should be applauded; they will add to the quality of music education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out that the basic music education


required between the ages of five and 14 does not include specialist instrumental or singing teaching. I regret that, and believe that it is a weakness in the national curriculum.
What the national curriculum does require, particularly at key stage 2, is a lot of specialised knowledge of music. It requires the teaching of notation and composing; it requires a quality of listening and appreciation of music that is really quite specialised and cannot be provided by just any teacher. The Minister would not fancy his hand at teaching a group of young children at key stage 2 ostinato, or to appreciate Stravinsky on the one hand and reggae on the other.
What the Minister, quite rightly, is asking for in the basic music education in the national curriculum is some quite specialist skills and knowledge, specialist music teaching. Yet he must understand that the Government's proposal would have the effect of cutting back on specialised music teaching, both peripatetic and through the music services and music advisers. So here we have, on the one hand, the Government rather admirably wanting very specialist knowledge to be taught to our children, yet, on the other hand, taking action that will drive out specialist music teaching, both through music services and in schools. There seems to be a contradiction there.
The Minister may say in his reply that this can all be addressed through enhanced in-service training. He will probably refer to such things as the Reading consultancy service, which are beginning to get off the ground and will certainly improve the quality of teaching of non-specialist music teachers. But he knows that they cannot, by themselves, fulfil the needs or develop the full potential of the basic music education in the national curriculum. There is a contradiction which the Minister really ought to address.
I am sure that the Minister knows that the quality of the music services that my hon. Friends and I are seeking to preserve is dependent on the quality of the music advisers. I believe that this view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I join the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in paying tribute to the service there, which I am sure is replicated in many other constituencies. Yet, as the Minister will know, the music advisers national association did a survey at the end of last year which showed in the last three months of that year that the threat of this action by the Government and of other cuts in local authority education services meant that, out of 108 music advisers in the country, 17 lost their jobs—roughly 15 per cent.—and that they will not be the last to lose their jobs. So the very people who provide the specialist skills are leaving the service.
The Minister will also know, having done his homework, that the United Kingdom Council for Music Education and Training, too, did a survey last year. It suggested that, if what the Government are seeking to do tonight becomes law, only 12 per cent. of local education authorities plan to keep a full music service going. That cannot be right if the Minister shares the applause and congratulations on the quality of music teaching; something surely is wrong.
We should not be talking about clinging on to the quality of our service. This debate should be about improving it, getting more music teachers, more support in schools, more professional musicians into schools, and more children leaving the classroom to experience a concert. How can we say that we have a comprehensive education in this country when so many children leave

school at 16 never having had the opportunity to hear live music in a concert hall? That does not seem to me to be a comprehensive education. That is the debate that we ought to be having tonight. Instead, we are scrabbling around trying to persuade the Minister not to destroy something which is a jewel of the British education service.
Most of the debate tonight has been on music education, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West spoke about school libraries. Surely there can be agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of books and libraries for education. Indeed, the idea of an education service without libraries, without books, is a contradiction in terms.
However, the Minister knows that the pressure on local authority finances in recent years has meant that on the whole schools have been buying fewer books and that the books that are on the shelves are old and out of date. When the Labour party did a survey 18 months ago of school library provision, we were literally flooded by examples from school libraries all over the country which had books on the shelves that were 30, 40, 50, or 60 years out of date. There were books about the British empire, with the wrong maps; and one book said that radio was the technology of the future. That was on the science shelf of a secondary school. They might seem rather laughable examples, but there is something wrong with school libraries when they have such out-of-date books for teaching our children which have not been weeded out and replaced by the best.
The Minister should know that four out of five schools have fewer than the 10 books per pupil recommended by Her Majesty's inspectors. Of course, the Government will not have the benefit of HMIs' advice in future, but, while they have it, they ought to take that professional advice and agree that 10 books per pupil is not a reasonable aim for a school and a school library. I cannot believe that the Minister will disagree with that. But four out of five schools in all our constituencies do not have 10 books per pupil. Only one school in four nationally has a library policy. Hon. Members may not realise that children in their constituencies are going to schools that do not have a policy about how to develop the library services that are the core of their constituents' children's education.
Schools spend on average less than one third of the level per pupil recommended by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Less than one school in five has a qualified librarian. Far from being like music, in which we have a glorious tradition, our library services are buckling and sagging, and the Government are likely to make a bad situation worse through the Bill.
As school libraries decline, the need for school library services becomes more acute. If the picture painted by Her Majesty's inspectorate is correct—and it is—that service and the common share provision is the only thing saving children's access to books. The Minister is putting that service at risk.
As with the music debate, we should not be talking about trying to salvage a school library service. The Minister should be considering the existing superb library services—I am sure that he is—that are often in Conservative-controlled or non-Labour-controlled authorities such as Hertfordshire, which has possibly the best school library service in the country. I am sure that he has visited it. If he has, he will realise that it is a credit and an enhancement to education in Hertfordshire, and there are other success stories.
7.30 pm
We should be setting such standards everywhere. Every school should have a library, which should be open throughout the school day. Every library should be adequately staffed by qualified librarians, and every local education authority should have a school library service.
Those remarks should be totally uncontentious and should be endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Government seem deaf to such common sense. As I understand it, through the Bill, the Government are seeking to destroy the library and music services and they could be saved from doing so if they accepted new clause 1. The music service is a jewel of our education system, and the library service is absolutely essential, but is in a bad state of repair. Both need support and succour from the Government, but they are getting damage and neglect. That cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to think again.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to intervene, if only briefly.
The comments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) do not bear closely on my experience of my constituency where, in the brief time that I have been associated with the schools, I have found an excellent music and library tradition. Some of the primary schools have taken their choirs to the United States and to Poland and some of the other schools regularly co-operate with one another. For example, all the schools have got together to fund the purchase of an Indonesian instrument, whose name escapes me—it is a series of amazing drums, and sounds almost West Indian. All the senior schools use the instrument—if someone could possibly feed me with its name I should be exceedingly grateful.
It is heart-warming to hear the music made in both senior and junior schools in Hastings.

Ms. Armstrong: As I understand it, East Sussex, which is the authority, has a good music service and that is precisely what we are trying to preserve through the new clause.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Durham. North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has not given my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) the name of the instrument.

Mrs. Lait: Yes, my hon. Friend reminds me that I was grasping for the name of the instrument.
Some hon. Members in the Chamber know that I have been critical of East Sussex, but I do not deny that its music and library services are of a high standard.
I do not think that music teaching and the library service in schools will be less good merely because the local education authority no longer has over-arching control. The Bill would free teachers and pupils to make their own decisions, because if they go grant maintained they will have the budget to make decisions about the sort of music that they wish to provide.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that music provision is patchy, but head teachers are the key. If a teacher is exceedingly interested in music, the school will provide a wonderful music service, but one

tends to find that if the head teacher is less interested in music, the school is less likely to provide the quality of music teaching to be found in some other schools.
I accept that many pupils demonstrate a skill that one would not necessarily expect. Once the head teacher and the teaching staff have control of their budgets and pupils have shown signs of interest, we can provide a superb music service. Under the new system we shall continue to do so.
I confess that I am impressed at the quality of the library service in my constituency—the space, the number of books and how modern they are. I suggest that if we are looking for 60-year-old books in school libraries, we might look to see whether they are first editions and therefore of some value, as they could be sold to buy the more modern and up-to-date books that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central seems to recommend.

Mr. Clappison: Such as an Indonesian dictionary.

Mrs. Lait: Yes, I agree.
The fundamental argument is that when schools have control over the totality of their budgets there will be no reason why they cannot buy in services, nor will there be any reason why schools that are deeply involved cannot sell such services, as that will not have to go through the local education authority.

Mr. Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate and do so with some trepidation because I know of the great distinction that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) bring to the debate, with their knowledge of the arts and the authority with which they can speak on the subject.
I wish to contribute partly because of the remarks that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made about Hertfordshire. As he said, Hertfordshire has a tradition of excellence in its school library service, so the debate is of concern to my constituents. Hertfordshire also has excellent music provision. Those services are of great interest to schools, teachers, pupils and parents in Hertfordshire, and they will look for a continuation of that tradition of excellence.
The question of provision has a greater urgency in many Hertfordshire schools because they are moving rapidly towards grant-maintained status. Five schools in my constituency have recently balloted and each has opted, by a large majority, for such status. The Hertfordshire tradition of excellence in music and library provision is represented in those schools and they will be greatly interested in the debate. I have listened carefully to the debate. Opposition Members in particular have spoken with great feeling on the subject. I look for an assurance from Ministers about the position of library and music services.
As I listened to the debate, I remembered what was said in Committee when we considered the provision of services by LEAs. Similar points have been raised in both debates, but I am not as pessimistic as Opposition Members are about the alternative provision of supply. I do not believe that experience in other areas has shown that the independent sector is inadequate or unenterprising in making alternative provision. In the future I look for


diversity and enterprise in the provision of music and library services. There is a great deal to be gained from that.
I have sought to put the debate in the context of a more general one about the provision of local authority services. I have listened with interest to what has been said about the provision of music and library services.

Mr. Forth: With the indulgence of the House, I shall start by moving amendment No. 126, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would expect.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No, I would not. Moving the amendment comes later.

Mr. Forth: I am most relieved, as that means that I can spend more time answering the debate.
What is somewhat depressing about this debate—like that in the Committee—is the negative attitude that prevails on the Opposition Benches, which is contrasted by the more positive attitude displayed by my hon. Friends. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his long-standing interest in these matters. He was kind enough to acknowledge that he and I have considered this issue and, although I have not been able to satisfy my hon. Friend completely, I am sure that he will agree that the problems that he envisaged are not as great as he originally thought. The views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reflected that positiveness.
Contrast that with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who said that only the county can enable joint and co-operative provision in the supply of music services. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) suggested that a plural provision—an interesting term, I thought—would somehow be denied by the measures in the Bill, which the new clause seeks to amend. I hope to demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.
One of the other ironies of the debate is that Opposition Members have been at pains to point out the inadequacy of some of the existing provision, but that provision is made by the very LEAs that they argue should continue to have some sort of monopolistic control over the provision of music and library services.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central spoke about the inadequacy of school library books stock, a concern which was echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It is difficult to argue that one must hold on to the existing provision, because anything else will be fatally damaging, while arguing, almost in the same breath, that that existing provision is somehow inadequate. I am at a loss to square those two arguments, as was the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I can help the Minister to understand my point. Because school libraries have been so run down in recent years, the school library service—the common provision across an authority to which all school libraries can turn to bolster their stock—is essential. The Minister has threatened the existence of the school library service.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that clarification and I shall deal with that point later.
It is important to recall that whatever threat the Opposition may see and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) envisages is not immediate and its effect will not be uniform across the country. The choice is not as stark as has been portrayed. An alternative provision of services will be considered only when LEAs start to reach and exceed the margin of capacity of their provision—that will occur only when a significant number of their schools have decided to become grant maintained. That decision will be taken by schools in the full knowledge of what independence means.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said. If parents decide that relying on the continuance of LEA provision of the kind to which their school is accustomed is of paramount importance to them, perhaps that school is not the right sort to become grant maintained. If, on the other hand, a school is ready to accept the independence, responsibilities and the funding regime that come with grant-maintained status, and it can contemplate looking more widely for the provision of services, it can go forward with confidence. I shall cite examples of schools that have done just that.

Mr. Cormack: I must make it plain that I merely said that that was a factor in certain recent decisions that I personally regretted. I believe that those schools would be better if they were not left as they are, as do many of the parents. If their anxieties could be stilled on this particular point, I suspect that a lot of them would vote in a different way.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for that is precisely the argument that I want to make.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a little booklet entitled "Education for the Next Century", which the Government have placed in most public libraries and which has the approval of the Plain English Campaign. It says about grant-maintained schools:
LEAs can offer services to GM schools where there is a need for them and the schools can buy from the LEA or elsewhere.
Many parents will have read that document and will be totally unaware that if their school does become grant maintained it will be unable, once the LEA has gone beyond the margin that the Minister has mentioned" to buy services from that LEA. Can the Minister make a definitive statement about that, so that the position is absolutely clear?

Mr. Forth: I shall certainly look at the wording of the publication to which the hon. Lady referred. It is somewhat at odds with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, who suggested that parents were being scared by the thought that they would no longer be able to look to their LEA for those services. The hon. Lady is suggesting that, somehow, they are being conned into believing that they can get those services from the LEA. We cannot have it both ways and the matter must be resolved one way or the other. I shall look at that publication.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister will be aware that under an amendment to clause 25 the Secretary of State has taken powers to declare ballots void if he believes that misleading information has been presented to parents for


a grant-maintained ballot. If the circumstances surrounding the supply of services to grant-maintained schools became an issue in a ballot, what would the Minister consider to be misleading information—that given by his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) or that quoted in the booklet?

Mr. Forth: I shall look at the wording in that publication to see whether it is in any way misleading.
As I said a few moments ago, one of the problems with this debate is that none of us can be specific about the point at which the margin of capacity of a particular LEA may be reached and, therefore, when the restrictions on its trading powers and provision of services to grant-maintained schools may be reached. That will vary authority by authority, it will vary over time and it will vary up and down the country.
The alternatives that are available to schools are numerous and I should like to come to the point rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. There is the option of co-operation between schools —co-operatives even—that seek to come together to make use of the funds made available to them either through the local management of their schools or grant-maintained status. They may seek to make joint provision for certain services. In the case of libraries, for example, if a school has its own library that is one matter, but primary schools may want to form themselves into consortia. Similarly, secondary schools may provide library services for their local primary schools. All those possibilities can be explored. Local authority public libraries might find ways in which they could make provisions available to local schools on a much more broadly defined basis. The margin of capacity for a local authority, as a whole, as opposed to a local education authority, tends to be wider and would allow the public library service to range more widely than normal.
There is a range of possibilities, but, at present, as we are in the relatively early stage of development, those possibilities have not yet been fully explored or come to full fruition. I shall give examples of where the possibilities have been explored.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I remind the Minister of what he said during our debate on the subject in Committee on 4 February—Hansard, column 1373? He said that local authorities should not be able to offer services to grant-maintained schools because they were "non-profit-accountable bodies." Is the Minister saying that he will allow grant-maintained schools to trade with each other? If so, is he saying that they are profit-accountable bodies and one of their main purposes should be to trade with other schools in their region? What is the difference between one publicly funded organisation—a local authority—providing the services and another publicly funded organisation—a grant-maintained school—doing so?

Mr. Forth: I think that the hon. Lady is making slightly heavy weather of the issue. There is nothing to stop schools using their funds for educational purposes, which is what the funds are for. If the schools believe that by joint activity or co-operative activity or forming consortia for educational purposes they can achieve that end, I know of no inhibition on them.

Mr. Steinberg: I do not believe that the Minister understands what a resource centre is. He is talking about using a public library. Does he realise that a resource centre provides all the facilities that I mentioned earlier, such as projects and history objects, which a public library does not hold centrally? Such provisions are specifically held by learning resource centres. It is impossible for a central library or local library to hold objects that schools can borrow. They are held only by the local education authority. I believe that the Minister does not understand the difference between a central public library and a learning resource centre.

Mr. Forth: I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to expand his mind beyond what is at present. We have sat through 140 hours of debate in Committee, so I know that Opposition Members are profoundly conservative. In normal circumstances, I might welcome that. But the fact that Opposition Members cannot get their minds beyond what is at present and cannot imagine anything other than a local education authority providing anything is bedeviling the debate. The Government are suggesting that it is highly likely that given the fact that we are now liberating schools, their governors, head teachers and everyone else involved—through a combination of delegated budgets and local management of schools and the possibility of grant-maintained status—they can make decisions about their priorities and how they use their funds.

Mr. Steinberg: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if his intervention is as long as his previous one, it will be the last time that I give way.

Mr. Steinberg: Does not the Minister realise that he is talking about liberating schools, but saying that they cannot purchase from a local education authority? Where is the liberation in that?

Mr. Forth: The liberation comes from the fact that schools can look to other provision which is now beginning to materialise. Examples of LEAs that are looking to trusts to provide music services include those in Kirklees, Kent, Berkshire, East Sussex and Derbyshire. That trust status would be an interim stage towards the fully independent provision of the services that we believe that schools will want to consider.
I can give a number of examples of grant-maintained schools that are already purchasing catering, payroll, music, legal, architectural, cleaning, catering, auditing, outdoor education and ground maintenance services. I could continue with the list, but I think that those examples of grant-maintained schools purchasing such services—including music—will serve. In all those schools, music is included in the service. Some of them maintain that the provision that they are now able to purchase freely, and of their own choice and source, is better than the one that they used to obtain from the monopoly local education authority provider. That is what I mean by liberation, local decision making and local management using its resources.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give a concrete example of one service that is so much better than the ones that already exist?

Mr. Forth: I know of at least one school that claims that its provision is superior to that it had previously—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] If the House will bear with me, I hope to be able to give that example—[Interruption.] —I cannot find the example immediately, and shall come back to it in a moment, as I want to speak to my amendment before I sit down. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I think that the Minister has been given the information, so if he wishes to resume his speech, give us the name of the school and give way in a moment, I shall happily let him.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The school is Bingley grammar school—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members find it amusing.

Mr. Enright: rose—

Mr. Forth: No, I shall not give way, as the hon. Gentleman must allow me to tell the House about Bingley grammar school. It claims to have tripled the interest in music for a better price since it has not received its music service from the local education authority. It now buys in peripatetic music teachers.

Mr. Enright: I was laughing because Leeds already gives an excellent service, which I doubt has been bettered by the purchases suggested by the Minister.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman can come to the Chamber as an apologist for Leeds, but, in answer to the question that I was posed, I am giving an example of a school that has demonstrated the principle that underlies the section of the Bill that we are discussing, and shows why the new clause is so misconceived. The example also partly answers the important question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South.
There are growing numbers of grant-maintained schools that have demonstrated their capacity and capability to go to the hardly developed market place for services and purchase them to their satisfaction, competitively and with choice. That is a completely different approach from the monopolistic LEA-driven approach that previously existed. I concede straight away that it is different for people, who have the education of children at heart and who have known only local education authority provision all their lives, to see beyond that. Even at this early stage, long before we have reached margins of capacity and the provisions begin to bite, we see encouraging examples of schools that are able to obtain library and music provision to their satisfaction from the marketplace.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I think that I am right in saying that Bingley is unique in another aspect: it is the one grant-maintained school that has applied to take out a mortgage. I do not know what the connection is there—perhaps it is to pay for the music. I hope that the Minister will respond to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Small schools, where the marginal cost of the provision of music lessons is excessive, may find themselves excluded from the sort of provision that the Minister mentioned. Will the Minister read new clause 1, which states that the local authority may provide those services and the grant-maintained schools may buy them? No one is forcing either the local authority to provide the service or the grant-maintained school to pay for it. That option

should be available both to the local authority and the grant-maintained school—to use the Minister's word, it is "liberating".

Mr. Forth: As long as local education authorities are allowed to continue to make that provision, it is most unlikely that others will be able to come in or provide an adequate alternative—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
As a courtesy to the House, I will explain amendment No. 126. Its purpose is to allow LEAs in prescribed circumstances to charge grant-maintained schools for such services. If a GM school decides to use a particular LEA-provided support service, it is reasonable for the school to pay for that service if it is already funded to do so.
To deny LEAs the opportunity to charge would mean that grant-maintained schools would otherwise be double funded—money being given to the school on the one hand but the service being provided free on the other. In effect, and as important, that would choke off the development of a free market in such services, since alternative suppliers could not compete. We shall of course consult widely on the necessary regulations.
I hope that the House will accept that the Government amendment is entirely reasonable, is very much within the spirit of the Bill, and will enable local education authorities to charge where it is necessary to do so, to avoid double counting.

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 275.

Division No. 165]
[8 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dafis, Cynog


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Blunkett, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyce, Jimmy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Boyes, Roland
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Enright, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Etherington, Bill


Cann, Jamie
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fatchett, Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Faulds, Andrew






Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meacher, Michael


Fraser, John
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Garrett, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


George, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Harvey, Nick
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pickthall, Colin


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


Hutton, John
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ruddock, Joan


Jamieson, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Short, Clare


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Skinner, Dennis


Jowell, Tessa
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Keen, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Litherland, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Llwyd, Elfyn
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Tipping, Paddy


McAllion, John
Turner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Macdonald, Calum
Wallace, James


McFall, John
Wai ley, Joan


McKelvey, William
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Maclennan, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Alice
Wise, Audrey


Mandelson, Peter
Worthington, Tony





Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. John Spellar and



Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Milligan, Stephen
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Paice, James
Walden, George


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Porter. David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert
'The Secretary of State shall by order appoint not less than ten nor more than fifteen persons to be the members of the agency, of whom one he shall appoint as Chairman'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 183, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
No. 38, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end add
'; and the names of those whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint shall be submitted to the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons which may report thereon.'.

Mr. Lloyd: I welcome the Secretary of State's return to our proceedings: it is a rare treat to see him in the Chamber to observe our deliberations on the main part of the Bill. As it is his own Bill, he is more than welcome.
Amendment No. 181 concerns what the Secretary of State recently described on television as the A-word—in this case, the arrogance of the Secretary of State. The amendment asks whether a check should be placed on such arrogance, in the form of parliamentary scrutiny.
Throughout the Bill's Committee stage, the Secretary of State was not prepared to put himself to the test of accountability—least of all to Parliament, and, through Parliament, to the general public. The purpose of amendments Nos. 181 and 183 is to ensure that, once the Secretary of State has decided on the names of the 10 to 15 persons who are to be members of the funding agency, and on the chairman's name, the list of names will be submitted to the scrutiny of the House. That is reasonable in itself, but it is particularly reasonable in view of the many lessons that we still have to learn about the opting-out process.
We know that the information on which opting-out decisions are made is changing on a fairly regular basis as the Government change their mind about which bribes to offer those whom they wish to persuade. A number of such bribes have been offered to certain schools recently—bribes which, although they are up front at the point at which opting out is under consideration, have been rapidly withdrawn when it has already taken place. Schools that have opted out are beginning to find themselves in crisis.
8.15 pm
The Government are concerned enough about the failure of the process for their tone to become more and more strident, and their apologists are finding it necessary to make increasingly extreme statements. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) is present. He and I have engaged in a brief discussion about a recent article in The Birmingham Post. As an apologist for the Government's opting-out policy, the hon. Gentleman accused Conservative-controlled Hereford and Worcester county council of all manner of unpleasant things: in particular, he said that the council had engaged in a dirty tricks campaign to prevent the opting out of the Nunnery Wood secondary school, which in fact voted against the whole concept of removing itself from LEA involvement.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks drew an almost immediate response from the Conservative chairman of the county's education committee, Dr. David Moffett. He described the hon. Gentleman's comments as "intemperate and snide"—extreme comments, given that they came from a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. Dr. Moffett went on to launch an astonishing onslaught on the hon. Gentleman, saying that his was


an unworthy attack made by an ignorant man totally out of touch with the views of the overwhelming majority of those constituents who were involved.
I think that it was grossly unfair of Dr. Moffett to single out the hon. Member for Worcester. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman was acting merely as the voice—the poodle, or lapdog—of the Ministers who are really responsible for the total lack of contact with constituents. It is they who are completely out of touch with not only the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but with constituents throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating his intention to mention me in his speech. I suspect, however, that he is not fully informed of the situation relating to Hereford and Worcester county council, and Nunnery Wood high school in particular; I also suspect that he is unaware of the totally misleading campaign involving literature put out by Dr. Moffett and the education authority, which I rightly criticised.
Dr. Moffett's attack on me may owe more to the fact that he is losing the argument in the county. Only today, I received a letter from my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, informing me that the Blessed Edward Oldcorne Roman Catholic high school in Hereford and Worcester had had its application for grant-maintained status approved. That is probably at the root of Dr. Moffett's concern.

Mr. Lloyd: It would not be fair for me to become over-involved in the domestic policy of the Conservative party. If Dr. Moffett is wrong—and the hon. Gentleman is not an ignorant man—I am prepared to listen to evidence to that effect over the weeks, months or years during which he may remain in the House. I look forward with interest to any evidence that he is in touch with his constituents; Dr. Moffett's view suggests the opposite. However, it is not only the Dr. Moffetts in the Conservative party who are very worried about the opting-out process and, especially, about the centralisation process implied in opting out and the funding agency.
In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made it clear to the Minister in an almost throwaway remark—it was noticeable that the Under-Secretary of State for Schools declined to respond to him—that the funding agency is a centralising measure. I believe that his words mirror part of mainstream Conservative thinking.
Conservative Members might want to leap to their feet to say that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South is not representative of mainstream Conservative thinking, but as no Conservative Member is rising, I can assume only that his view—that it is a centralising measure—is also their view. The hon. Member for Worcester is indicating dissent but we know that, when all is said and done, he is already condemned out of the mouth of the chairman of the Conservative Worcester and Hereford education committee.
It is worth quoting again the words of Dimitri Coryton, the close friend of the Minister and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He actively campaigned for the Conservative party during the previous general election, once on the Prime Minister's bus. It was the same Dimitri Coryton of the Conservative Education Association who said of the White Paper:
The Government's present emphasis on GM schools, however, is something we have grave doubts about …in effect, the Government is nationalising the schools of England and Wales …We believe that it represents a massive and

dangerous increase in the power given to central government …All that will happen is the replacement of LEAs with a far larger, more bureaucratic and less accountable national education authority".
Those are not the words of disinterested neutrals; they come from the very heart of the Conservative party.
This is a nationalising Secretary of State, who gives us little lectures and homilies about the modernising process within the Labour party. The tendency within the Conservative party to centralisation and nationalisation has been evident during the past 14 years, during which time we have witnessed the very failures about which the Secretary of State sometimes exercises himself. As an old lag in the Government, the present Secretary of State has once again been caught with his political fingers in the till by a number of bodies who, on other occasions, could be regarded as supporters of the grant-maintained principle.
As far as I am aware, the Association of Heads of Grant Maintained Schools has not changed its views. Before the Committee stage, it said that it found it difficult to accept the
total inconsistency between the powers proposed for the FAS …and the earlier assurances of the greater autonomy and accountability of schools".
The Church of England also made its views known. It said:
We note that the Funding Agency will assume responsibilities for strategic planning but feel that the White Paper is somewhat light in indicating how this will work out in practice and, in particular, in explaining how the Funding Agency will relate to the other bodies that will be involved in this activity".
Those bodies were cited in Committee, but it is worth repeating their comments. Although he attended every sitting, unlike the Secretary of State, and took genuine pains to try to explain it, the Minister did not explain satisfactorily even to his own Back Benchers how the contradictions and confusion in the Bill would work out in practice.
The Funding Agency for Schools is a centralising measure. That form of centralisation runs through the White Paper. We are assured that the Secretary of State was the author of the White Paper, so he wrote that the funding agency will have powers for quality assurance in schools. It is a massive step towards centralisation for a body consisting of only 15 members to exercise quality from the centre.
The funding agency is to take on the duty of securing adequate places and will have to accept the duty of closing schools. That responsibility is inevitable because of falling rolls in some areas. Where there are falling rolls, the Secretary of State's personal funding agency will find it difficult to make decisions from the centre. Such centralisation has so far persuaded a considerable number of authorities and outside commentators and, indeed, a considerable number of those involved even in the opting-out process that the whole system is fraught with danger and difficulty, which is why there is increasing stridency and greater bribes from Ministers.
The Cambridge Evening News recently reported comments by the Under-Secretary of State. Perhaps he might like to comment now. He was reported as having told the governors of the Netherhall secondary school that it was more likely to get a new building if it opted out of local authority control. The Secretary of State is looking at the Under-Secretary with absolute amazement, as if he is confused and bewildered by the fact that the Under-Secretary would have the temerity to offer a bribe that he had not got round to offering. Does the Under-Secretary


want to leap to his feet and deny the newspaper story? It would be most helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) if he were to place on record the fact that he disowns the story. However, perhaps he wishes to confirm that that particular bribe to Netherhall secondary school is on offer.
The Under-Secretary prayed in aid the Prime Minister. It is unusual for the Prime Minister to have any firm views—it is a case of "Will he, won't he?" and "What's the policy this week?" However, in this case, at that time the Prime Minister's view was that there was to be no level playing field. The Under-Secretary made it clear that he does not believe in level playing fields. He believes in backhanders here and the odd fudge there and keeping the concept of fairness for all young people out of schools.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend might not be aware that this issue has caused considerable controversy in my constituency. I am sure that some parents, teachers and governors are anxious to get some word from the Secretary of State, or the Minister if he prefers, to find out precisely what was said to the head and chair of governors on that occasion. The onus is on the Minister to clarify that.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me make it clear that I am quite happy to allow the Minister or the Secretary of State to stand up. If the Secretary of State feels that it is necessary to disown the Minister, he should not feel embarrassed about coming to the Dispatch Box to do so because I will certainly give way to him. My hon. Friend will notice that there is a deafening silence. I know not what conclusions to draw. However, I know what conclusions I might draw if I were a parent—the promises issued at dead of night by Conservative central office in a press release are not worth the paper they are written on.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: In the absence of the Minister, of course I shall give way to the hon. Lady. Is she answering for him?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am pointing out that that is exactly what happened in practice when Lancashire county council tried to stop Morecambe high school opting out, and also what happened to a school in my constituency when Lancashire county council gave it a sixth form for which it had been asking for 14 years. Just when it had a chance to opt out, it got its sixth form.

Mr. Lloyd: My colleagues are pointing out to me the fact that the Secretary of State must have approved that. If the Secretary of State is deliberately undermining the hon. Lady, I shall bring them together during the Division and insist that he gives her the answer that he is certainly not going to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. As one of his own, the hon. Lady at least is entitled to an explanation of why he gave that approval to that school. Is it not in the nature of the process?
Is this not the serious complaint we all have? The Government are intent on saying or doing anything in order to persuade schools to opt out and will come up with almost any argument or line that they think will be persuasive. We have a Minister—because I have not had an opportunity to warn him about this, I will not name him, but a letter exists and I shall make it available to

anyone who doubts—who wrote unsolicited to the majority of school governors in his constituency. He wrote on House of Commons notepaper—I think he was probably in breach of the rules of the House, although that is something that others need to take up. He said:
As a school governor I hope that you will seriously consider whether your school is benefiting from local authority control.
He also wrote:
In order to combat the … council's spending cuts, many local schools have already sought their independence under grant maintained status. The next twelve months offers the opportunity for many schools to do likewise.
8.30 pm
The Minister, who is a spending Minister, does not mention that his own Department is making the same kind of cut. The Secretary of State can certainly see who it is if he wishes to take the matter up and rebuke his colleague. I am quite happy if he wishes to do that, but it is not my role to squeal on Ministers who are simply doing the bidding of their superiors in Cabinet.
The reality, when it comes to the crunch, is that the picture is very different. This is a message that the House has to understand. The Secretary of State's bribes, and even those uttered by the Secretary of State at his behest, do not add up to anything, because, time after time, we come across schools which have taken the little bit extra that has been offered and have then found themselves seriously disadvantaged. I will not quote an old case. Let me quote a new case, of Pate's—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty in relating this to the amendment about the agency and the numbers and the decentralisation of that.

Mr. Lloyd: All will be revealed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All will be revealed. I am most grateful.

Mr. Lloyd: The point is that, so distrustful are we of the Secretary of State's word, we feel that it is necessary to have a body operating from the agency in whom Parliament can repose some trust which we cannot place in the Secretary of State. We need such people and can only have them and have faith in them if the parliamentary scrutiny of the appointments system takes place. The reason is that the promises that have been lavished on schools opting out have been so badly betrayed, as in the case of Pate's grammar school in Cheltenham.
That is one of those schools that opted out and had, even under the Government's recent league table, what is considered to be an excellent set of examination results. It had 98 per cent. of pupils taking GCSE examinations getting five or more A to C grades. It is a school that I think the Government would parade as one of their star achievers, but it has funding cuts of about £190,000, which it cannot make up by savings in funding. Apparently, it can find savings of £30,000 but will have to cut £160,000 or propose to parents that they accept making voluntary payments of £210 a year from each family to stave off that crisis. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it is normal for meetings to be held outside the Chamber.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the Minister often has a facility for ignoring his Back Benchers. I cannot seriously believe that he was listening to them. I think that his attention was almost certainly on the debate.
The point at issue in this school is that the head teacher, Mr. David Barnes, said:
It's a dreadful shame that, because of cuts in income, the free grammar school that has been here for 400 years should have to ask parents to consider helping to fund the school.
That is the reality of opting out. That is why we need—

Dr. Robert Spink: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member's comments are completely irrelevant. The evidence is that schools choose to opt out for management control so that they can get decisions that will benefit their children; they do not opt out for financial reasons. I have the evidence to support what I say. I had a meeting of all the schools that had opted out in my constituency. All the secondary schools in my constituency opted out. They all say that they took that decision for management control and for that reason only.

Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to comment on the circumstances of the hon. Member's constituency, except to ask why, if that is the case, it is necessary for Ministers to offer bribes to schools. Perhaps the hon. Member will join me in castigating his Ministers for offering this kind of crude financial bribery. Would he want to associate himself with that kind of comment? Can I couple him with the comments I have just made? He seems to be at something of a loss, not sure whether to play the honest Back Bencher which he is earnestly striving to do or the sycophantic lickspittle.
It will be interesting to See what happens when we come to the vote, but I understand that the hon. Member's local education authority is Conservative controlled. I have a similar problem, because one of the two authorities with which my constituency is concerned, Trafford, is also Conservative controlled. Trafford has boasted for many years of an education system second to none, and has castigated the city of Manchester for what it provided by way of education.
It is instructive that Labour-controlled Manchester LEA has faced only one opting-out ballot, and that was defeated, but Conservative-controlled Trafford has now had a number of ballots which will bring it to the magical 10 per cent. structure. The LEA, because of its incompetence in the past, as with the hon. Member's Conservative-controlled LEA, finds itself in a position where the public are saying, "Anything other than Conservative control; even faceless bureaucrats are better in some circumstances."

Dr. Spink: The hon. Member's comments continue to be irrelevant. First, I see the Minister not as offering bribes but as meeting the quite proper phasing-in and capital costs, so that parents show a very popular school. On the matter of my local education authority, the schools opting out of that control are not showing that they have any quarrel with that authority but that that authority has treated them well in the past and brought them to a state of maturity in which they can take control of their own affairs and deliver better education for their children.

Mr. Lloyd: I can only assume that that was written on the cuff of every Conservative MP who possesses cuffs, because it is straight out of the Conservative central office hand-out. "Brought to a state of maturity"—it is an

interesting line, and a good one, but it does not explain why Ministers tell schools that they are more likely to get new buildings by opting out. It may not be a bribe in the hon. Member's terms, but it is an inducement or a sweetener in words that we can all agree upon as a compromise.

Dr. Spink: Anything that will induce schools to improve their standards is something that I support.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course it is, and that is what we should be having—a Bill that is really about improving standards for all our children, not just those in privileged little ghettos which suit the Secretary of State's ideology, but across the board in every LEA area so that there is proper access to decent high quality education that stretches them.
The reality is that this is so alien to the ideology of the present Government that we have this divisive piece of legislation—which is precisely why we say to the Secretary of State that it is so important that Parliament should have some control over the people who sit on his funding agency. I am aware that the Secretary of State will want to intervene in this debate to explain his own position on these matters.
Given the amount of centralisation implicit in the Bill and in the funding agency—that is the view not only of Labour Members and other Opposition Members but of people up and down the country, too—and given that many people are accusing the Secretary of State of a mindless centralisation that places dangerous powers in his hands, it is of critical importance that the House should have some control over the composition of the funding agency.
Throughout the debates on Second Reading and in Committee answers were not given about how the funding agency would operate, and whether the playing field would be so unfairly laid out that schools that wanted to stay within the LEA remit would be forced out. Answers were not given about how to resolve the confusion between the role of the funding agency as a provider of places and as a monitor of surpluses or shortages of places, and the role of the LEA in conjunction with it. In the not-too-distant future that situation will be the common one in a number of local authority areas in which there is joint control. Those answers have not been placed before Parliament.
For all those reasons, if we are not to be given answers during the passage of the Bill we must have some control over those whom the Secretary of State places in the funding agency. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to put the normal Tory place people there. Parliament should have the right to say that we want people of the highest possible calibre, in whom we can repose trust. The Government's track record shows us that, if the matter is left to the Secretary of State, we cannot possibly have that trust. Parliament must reserve the right to overrule the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pawsey: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I have been brought to my feet by the provocative comments made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
One of the objects of the Bill is to make it easier for schools to apply for and receive grant-maintained status. Opposition Members have made clear their hostility to grant-maintained status. Indeed, the hon. Member for


Dewsbury has said that, were Labour ever to win a general election, it would abolish grant-maintained status. Schools would then again be taken over by the local education authorities.
That is a remarkable assertion, given the fact that, as we heard in Question Time today, more than 250,000 of the nation's children are already being educated in grant-maintained schools. The Labour party is adopting a position extraordinary even by its standards. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dewsbury is not in the Chamber.

Mr. Patten: Missing again.

Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend, speaking from his usual place, says that the hon. Lady is absent as usual.
To the hon. Member for Dewsbury, parental opinion as expressed through a free and secret ballot means nothing. I find it odd that she is so far out of step with her right hon. and hon. Friends—for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who are all clearly moving away from the old clause 4 socialist mentality in which only state ownership and local education authority education is right.
The hon. Lady seems to be in a time warp. No doubt she will change her mind on the matter, precisely as she was forced to change her mind on the sale of council houses. I do not believe that, when thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of the nation's children are being educated in grant-maintained schools, she can seriously tell the House that the Labour party will abolish those schools and take them back into local education authority control.
I was intrigued by what the hon. Member for Stretford said about the opting out process. Let me tell him as fairly and as honestly as I can that there has been no change of principle on this side of the House. We remain firmly committed to the principles of grant-maintained schools and their opting out. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be confused. He referred to alleged bribes, but then went on to say that the bribes did not add up. There was a clear confusion in his mind.
If freedom is a bribe, there is indeed a bribe on the table. We are giving schools freedom from the local education authority, and freedom to decide for themselves the course they should pursue. If they wish, for example, to specialise, let them specialise. Freedom is the only bribe we offer. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools used the word "liberated" in a previous debate. That was the correct verb to use. Clearly, we are taking powers from the LEAs and giving them to individual schools.
The funding agencies are there to allocate funds; they are not in any way quality assurance agencies. Their only job is to distribute funds. We are not going down some centralist route, as suggested by Labour Members; we are providing powers to parents and governors. Nothing in the Bill remotely suggests nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has echoed a phrase used by our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) when we discussed the 1987 Bill which became the Education Reform Act 1988: he said that we were moving powers from the hub to the rim of the wheel. Exactly the same comment describes the Bill before us. We are giving

powers to parents, and there is no centralisation in the Bill. I therefore hope that we shall soon deal with the amendment and move on.

Mr. Patten: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: It is always a pleasure to give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who so frequently sits in the Chamber answering debates as fully and completely as he possibly can.

Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Nuneaton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kenilworth".] I mean, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Nuneaton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What is it?

Mr. Pawsey: Rugby and Kenilworth.

Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth think that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen would benefit from visiting a grant-maintained school or two? Does he not think it shameful for them to refuse to visit grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Pawsey: I am pleased that I gave way to my right hon. Friend, because I suspect that he has given the House some information. I had not previously realised that Labour Members had become so petty that they would not visit a grant-maintained school.

Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend not agree that refusing to visit grant-maintained schools is a form of educational apartheid on the part of Labour Members? They will find it more and more difficult to make that principle stick as more and more schools become grant-maintained. Do they not want to learn?

Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend makes a salient point, with which few hon. Members would disagree. Of course he is right.
Let me press an invitation on Labour Members. In my constituency, there is one grant-maintained school and another for which grant-maintained status has been approved. I shall willingly take any Labour Members to either of those schools and show them how we, and those schools, can deliver good, efficient education to the nation's children.
My right hon. Friend originally called my constituency Rugby and Nuneaton. He may have had in mind possible changes when the boundary commissioners examine the boundaries. My right hon. Friend may have been looking into the crystal ball more efficiently than I can.

Dr. Spink: Before my hon. Friend moves off that subject, will he invite Labour Members, when they visit grant-maintained schools, to note that, in such schools, the average percentage of children passing five GCSEs at grades A to C is 45 per cent., whereas in other schools the figure is 35 per cent.? Labour Members will then be able to see how grant-maintained schools are delivering higher standards. That is why parents are voting to send their children to them. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That does not relate to this amendment.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall conclude on this point. So far, some 453 schools are grant-maintained, with a further 220 applications still to be considered. Of that number, the


vast majority are secondary schools. Some 14 per cent. of the nation's secondary schools have acquired grant-maintained status. That is a most significant figure.
A Labour Government would abolish grant-maintained schools at their peril. Labour Members should realise that grant-maintained schools are liked by parents and governors. If Labour Members want to lose the next general election, they should simply continue saying that a Labour Government will abolish grant-maintained schools. There is no easier or quicker way to ensure that we are returned to office again.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: It is always a great joy to follow the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He made similar compassionate but totally irrelevant comments to those which he made in Committee, although he did so with a verve which was unfortunately not available to us in terms of seeing the Secretary of State in Committee. The Secretary of State was never in his place in Committee. He was so interested in this major Bill that he did not manage to turn up to hear what some of his colleagues had to say about the clauses.
The Bill makes major changes to our education service. In so doing, it fails to pay attention to the structure of local government. Effectively, local education authorities will be abolished. The Secretary of State might not have put it quite so bluntly, but I dare say that before the end of this evening he may admit that that is the Government's intention.
Worse than that is the fact that the changes in education are not even being done in a coherent way. Certainly the Government intend that all schools should be grant maintained. They talk about giving parents choice and, presumably alongside that, accountability. Local accountability in terms of education depends on having local education authorities. Clearly the Secretary of State and the Government do not wish to have local education authorities.
I should like to examine the effect of the funding agency, grant-maintained schools and the opting-out ballot. In Committee, we pressed the Government about the fact that only one vote will be taken by one set of parents in one term and that it will count for all time. Every generation of parents thereafter will not be allowed to reverse that decision or comment on it. Once schools have gone grant maintained, that is the end of the matter. For a Government who talk about choice, that seems to be a rather one-sided choice to Labour Members.
I should like to examine the effect of those ballots in London and across the country. The fact that there will be no opportunity for schools to return to local education authority management underlines the undemocratic nature of the procedures for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. It further emphasises that the Secretary of State will allow ballots to be declared void if he believes that there has been interference with ballot papers or votes, if information has been disseminated which might be false or misleading—that will apply only if the Secretary of State thinks so—or if the information suggests that grant-maintained status might not be the best option for a specific school. That gagging mechanism flies in the face of any legitimate expression of a range of views.

Mr. Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way in which this clause will operate is if the parental ballots go against the application for grant-maintained status? In such cases, the Secretary of State will have the power to instruct that the ballot be carried out again because he does not like the outcome. I cannot think of any other reasons why he would want the ballot to be rerun.

Mrs. Prentice: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that the choice relates only to the Secretary of State; it has nothing to do with parents. If parents choose to remain within local education authority control, the Secretary of State will say that they are wrong in making that decision and that the ballot must be re-examined. He will find reasons for throwing out that democratic decision so that he can have the decision which he wants.
The Bill proposes to allow a school governing body to ballot parents on opt-out by passing a single resolution. The Education Reform Act 1988 provided for double balloting. That is another example of the Government saying that they are not prepared to take any risk that parents might make up their own minds. Parents might decide that local education authorities are good for them, their children and local communities. On that basis, the Government will skew the balloting process to ensure that they get the decision they want. That means that the local community will have no influence whatever over the decision and schools will opt out. If 10 per cent. of schools in a local education authority area opt out, the funding agency will have to share the funding of schools with the local education authority.
I should like to examine the role of the funding agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, the funding agency is a remote and unaccountable quango. It is a centralisation mechanism by a Government who talk about handing power back to the people, local areas and local democracy. That is especially galling when it comes from a Government who abolished the London education authority because they said that it was too centralised. They pushed education back down to the boroughs in order to give power to parents in the local community.
The Government are now taking that power away from parents and centralising it. They are establishing a remote, unaccountable funding agency which will have little to do with the local area. The funding agency will have little knowledge of the local area and will not know what is happening in local areas in terms of new developments in housing, although I dare say that under the Government there will not be many new housing developments. It will not know what is happening in local areas in terms of new developments in the economy, although I do not suppose that there will be much of that in the recession. Perhaps, in that sense, we should not be too worried.
If new houses were to be built in local communities and if the economy in local communities were to be regenerated, one would think that there should be some organisation which is close to the local people and which would know what is happening in local areas. Such an organisation could help to develop and plan the local education system in local communities. But that is not to be.
The funding agency will be a national quango which is appointed by the Minister. It will probably have to


establish local officers and it will basically become a non-elected local education authority. That says much for choice and accountability.

Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the funding agency will distribute funds on the basis of a pre-fixed formula? Essentially, that is what local education authorities do at present. The formula will be similar. Grant-maintained status gives real ownership of schools to parents, governors, teachers and local communities. Real ownership breeds responsibility and an increased stake in society. That is real accountability at work. The Bill is not a centralising but a decentralising measure. It is about the philosophy of giving choice and responsibility to people. That is what distinguishes the Conservative party from the Labour party.

9 pm

Mrs. Prentice: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is grateful that I allowed him, in an intervention, to make the speech that he intended to make. I know that he did not have the benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee and hearing about some of the more detailed aspects of the funding agency. If he reads the Bill and the White Paper which preceded it, he will find that the funding agency is not a decentralisation mechanism. It will not include local representatives. No one from local government will sit on it. No one with any educational expertise will sit on it. People will be appointed by the Minister. If we go by the experience of the health service and other services, the appointees will simply be nodding heads who will go along with whatever the Government's line happens to be. [ Interruption.]

Mr. Hall: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) admits that.

Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful if the hon. Gentleman admits that they will be nodding heads who will simply carry out the Government's wishes.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Lady allow me to explain? The only thing that the funding agency will do is distribute funds. It will not control the schools.

Mrs. Prentice: I have given the hon. Gentleman two opportunities to intervene, but he still has not understood the provisions of the Bill or the role of the funding agency. I ask him to speak to the Ministers and find out exactly where he is going wrong so that he can understand the devastation that the creation of funding agencies may have on local education and local communities.
The Secretary of State loves to prate on about the Labour party chopping and changing its policies. Yet the creation of funding agencies is a real turnaround from his policies on the Inner London education authority and decentralisation. He is recentralising education and faking power away from people and parents. He is grabbing power. He will cosset the power and not allow anyone else to have any say or express any view.
Let us examine how the funding agencies will work. The changes in the calculation of the annual maintenance grants for grant-maintained schools and the suggestion that their budgets will have special protection under the current common funding formula cause us serious anxiety that the Government will penalise pupils in LEA schools because they are determined to pursue their opt-out policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) talked about creating a level playing field. It is clear that the Government do not believe in a level playing field if that does not suit their narrow and blinkered policies. That cannot be more starkly illustrated than by the system of the 10 per cent. trigger for the creation of funding agencies. I shall take as an example the effect of the trigger in London. I raised the matter in Committee and I do so again on the Floor of the House because it is important.
At present each London borough looks after the schools in its area. I can give two examples of where the creation of a funding agency would be triggered by the number of children in certain schools in the relevant borough. Only 3·9 per cent. of Camden's school population goes to the Jewish Free school. Yet if the parents of children at that school agreed in a ballot to opt out, the whole of Camden's education budget would have to be shared with a funding agency. That is not democratic. It is certainly not accountable. I wonder whether any of the parents who send their children to that school know that that would happen if they made the decision to opt out.
The other example is even more stark. In the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham the London Oratory school educates some 1,197 pupils. Only 196 of them are residents of the borough. Those 1,197 pupils represent some 20 per cent. of all the pupils taught in Hammersmith and Fulham. When the Bill becomes law, unless the Secretary of State can tell me otherwise, the funding of education in Hammersmith and Fulham will be shared between the borough and a funding agency because the London Oratory school is already a grant-maintained school.
The decision to share funding between the LEA and a funding agency was not made by the parents of the children in any of the Hammersmith schools. I am sure that if they had known, they would not have been happy to agree with it. Residents of Hammersmith and Fulham, who now decide who represent them, will have funding of education in their schools decided by someone else.

Mr. Bowis: I do not understand why the hon. Lady is making such a fuss. If a school which has a large number and therefore a high percentage of pupils votes to become grant maintained and that exceeds the 10 per cent. threshold, funding will come through the funding council and not directly from the Department. I cannot understand why she is so worried. The benefit to the school will be that it will also get the 15 per cent. additional funding which currently goes to the LEA and is not always passed on.

Mrs. Prentice: I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) does not understand. He was in Committee when we discussed the matter at length. Let me explain the problem once again.
Only 3·7 per cent. of the pupils who live in Hammersmith and Fulham and whose parents vote and pay their poll tax there attend the London Oratory school. Why should parents from outside Hammersmith and Fulham determine the funding for every other school there as a result of the trigger mechanism under the clause dealing with the funding agency? It is perfectly clear to Opposition Members that it is a totally undemocratic and unaccountable system which we find unacceptable.

Mr. Bowis: I wish simply to correct the wrong impression that the hon. Lady seems to be getting. Unless they become grant maintained, all the remaining schools will continue to be funded through the LEA, so what is the worry?

Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. the funding is shared between the funding agency and the local education authority. The Bill makes it quite clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point.
We are considering a huge Bill—the biggest Education Bill ever. The Government have tabled hundreds of amendments because they have started to realise that they have got much of it wrong. It is poorly thought out and major changes have not been made to fundamental aspects of it. Scant regard has been paid to the concerns of parents, pupils, teachers and, indeed, all those directly concerned with education in Britain. As will probably become clear in the debate on special educational needs, the Government have paid little attention to all those organisations concerned about the effects and side effects of grant-maintained status.
I believe that we have a particularly undemocratic Government. The longer I spend in the House the more obvious it becomes. They have taken powers away from local education authorities and local government and they refuse to tell people exactly what they are doing and why on a number of fundamentally important matters.
It will not be surprising if we get little information from the Secretary of State on the effects of the Bill as I do not believe that he understands it. He paid little attention to debates in Committee and he occasionally makes what he calls a statement to the House about education and how everything will be all right so long as it is in his hands. I hope that, as a result of this evening's debate and the continuing debate on education, people will realise that the education system is not safe in the hands of the Government any more than the health service, the pits or any other part of the country's economy is safe with them. We will continue to oppose them on every aspect of the Bill because they have got it absolutely and totally wrong.

Mr. Simon Burns: In speaking to these amendments I should like to put my remarks in context. In Chelmsford we have three secondary schools and one primary school that now have grant-maintained status, and a number of ballots are pending, including one at a school called Hylands which is of crucial importance for the purpose of my comments tonight.
It is important to bear in mind that grant-maintained status is determined by a ballot of parents. In Chelmsford, each ballot of parents has produced an overwhelming vote in favour of grant-maintained status because the parents believe such status to be in the best educational interests of their children. To give the education authority of Essex county council due credit, I have to say that it has done nothing to impede parents' wishes in any way.

Mr. Cormack: Given the number of grant-maintained schools in his constituency, will my hon. Friend consider inviting Opposition Members to visit some of them?

Mr. Burns: I should be more than happy to have anybody come and see the fine grant-maintained schools in Chelmsford and how enthusiastic parents have been about

securing for their children the benefits of such an education. However, I do not want to diverge; I want to stick to the amendments in this group.
It is crucial that the funding agency, which will consist of not fewer than 10 and not more than 15 individuals, should be of the highest possible calibre. It is hardly likely that anyone will disagree with that contention. Clause 1(3)(a) says:
In appointing the members of the agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including—

(a) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of primary or secondary education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of such education".

That is crucial.
On the other side of the coin, my right hon. Friend must exercise extreme care with regard to individuals who would be totally unsuitable for membership of the agency, notwithstanding any qualifications that might put them in the running under clause 1(3). Let me say why I urge my right hon. Friend to think extremely carefully about the composition of the agency. When considering any retired primary headmaster for inclusion, he should take great care with regard to calibre and background. In Chelmsford it has been shown that there is very good reason for such care. At present the Hylands school is balloting parents on whether to seek grant-maintained status. The ballot period will not end until next Monday. During the half-term break, when teachers were not readily available and when ballot papers were being delivered, a semi-anonymous leaflet was distributed to all households. This leaflet gives 10 grounds for saying no to grant-maintained status.

Mr. David Evennett: It must be the Liberals.

Mr. Burns: I am sure that the heavy hand of the Liberals is to be found somewhere.
As I develop my argument, my right hon. Friend will discover that the individuals responsible for this leaflet do not satisfy the criteria for membership of the funding agency. However, given the underhand measure of putting semi-anonymous leaflets through letter-boxes—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Semi-anonymous?

Mr. Burns: Yes, semi-anonymous. The leaflet has no proper imprint, gives a bogus name for the umbrella group, and gives no address or telephone number. And when people delivering it were challenged by parents they refused to divulge where they came from, whom they represented or why they were doing what they were doing. According to the Essex Chronicle of last week, the individual responsible for this skulduggery is none other than a retired head teacher of the King's road primary school in Chelmsford. I hasten to add that, as a child, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), chairman of the Conservative party, attended that school.
The individual in question also happens to be a prominent member of the National Union of Teachers —[Interruption.] That former headmaster—who should not qualify, regardless of what the Bill might say, for consideration by my right hon. Friend as a member of the funding agency—who has nothing to do with Hylands school, took that action off his own bat for narrow party


political purposes on a totally fictitious basis, the 10 points mentioned in his scurrilous leaflet being completely irrelevant and untrue.

Mr. Patten: I remind my hon. Friend of three points. The first is that, as he knows, I have visited Chelmsford within the last fortnight. The second is that whenever I go to Essex to refresh my political and ideological roots, I always meet the strongest possible support for grant-maintained schools.
The third is that in Essex, as elsewhere, people will have to beware the announcement that I shall make tomorrow about further counter-intimidation measures, to be part of the Bill, which will stop many of the actions of which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have rightly complained because of the anti-democratic antics of some Opposition Members.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. My constituents, in particular parents and teachers at Hylands school, will welcome the announcement that he will make tomorrow to tighten up on intimidation and the issuing of misleading information in an attempt to bamboozle parents into not voting on the basis of an even playing field. Correct information must be available.
I have urged my right hon. Friend to exclude certain people from consideration for appointment to the funding agency. On the other hand, he should remember that the activities of that retired headmaster have enraged the present headmaster and teachers at the school, who are anxious for it to seek grant-maintained status. So when my right hon. Friend is drawing up a list of people for consideration, he should not overlook the many decent, hard-working, first-rate teachers, such as Mr. Tony Mulholland, the present headmaster of Hylands school, who are disgusted by the tactics that have been aimed at Hylands school.
My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that there are many fine individuals throughout the education establishment who utterly repudiate underhand tactics and would welcome a funding agency comprised of those of the highest calibre to ensure that grant-maintained schools continue to flourish, resulting in more parents taking the democratic route and voting for their children to benefit from being educated in first-rate grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I hope that we can move from the antics of Chelmsford some hundreds of miles across the Severn estuary to Wales, where the remit of the Secretary of State does not run. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office in the Chamber; we trust that he will answer the points that my hon. Friends and I raise.
I refer specifically to amendment No. 38, which proposes that
the names of those whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint shall be submitted to the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House".
I do so also because the case for England has been ably put by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
There is no doubt that those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill are particularly worried about the need for proper and impartial scrutiny of the

membership of the new schools funding agency. Nothing that happened in Committee allayed our fears. In fact, worse has occurred, for in Wales, during the three months that the Bill was in Committee, the whole debate in education and local government circles about opt-out schools and membership of the schools funding agency resulted in a civil war.
Headlines in our national newspapers to the effect that the Bill will put Welsh education in crisis are now commonplace. Indeed, one article mentions that parent-teacher associations in Wales are deeply troubled by the content of the Bill. Mr. Ylltid Lewis, who is the treasurer of the Parents for Welsh Medium Education, which the Minister has championed, said in February:
Already we have children in primary schools where there is not adequate provision for them at secondary.
We are facing a situation which could be a critical one.
He goes on:
We represent parents and, hand on heart, we have not had a single parent who has told us, we want this.
I addressed the Welsh meeting of the parent-teacher associations for the Principality in Cardiff some two weeks ago, when there was unanimous disbelief at the way the Bill is going.
I believe also that, so desperate has the Minister of Slate become to persuade secondary schools, particularly in Wales, to opt out, that he has had meetings in his office of various head teachers who might be inclined to go that way. Certainly he addressed the secondary schools associations in mid-Wales a couple of weeks ago.
The latest attempt to persuade schools in Wales to go down this line is a letter sent to all secondary schools, which included the statement by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, on the completion of the Commons Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that it is unprecedented in terms of what goes to governors of schools, whether it be in England or in Wales, for the Minister to send out copies of his speeches and statements to try to persuade schools to go down this road.
Another complication which has arisen and which we believe is ripe for the Welsh Affairs Select Committee to deal with is the lack of openness that has surrounded the whole business of opt-out schools and the consultation process, which was started, as we know, back in the summer when all the schools were on holiday. When I asked the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether they would make public the result of the consultations in Wales, the answer was no. They refused to make those responses available for public scrutiny, on the ground that it would breach confidentiality. I am convinced that if the majority of those consultations had been in favour of grant-maintained schools, they would have been made public the following day.
The other problem that we face is that the Bill sets up at least two new quangos in Wales—the Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Schools Funding Council, with which the amendment deals. The whole business of quangos in Wales, as the Minister knows, is becoming a national and a public scandal. It will be debated in full next Monday in the city hall in Cardiff when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in that city for the first time.
The problems with quangos in Wales have meant that the opposition to the establishment of the Schools Funding Council encompasses all political parties in


Wales, save the Conservative party, all teaching associations and teaching unions, all the local education authorities and all the directors of education.
At this point, I have to mention that all the Welsh directors of education have resigned over these proposals. There was reference earlier today to Oscar Wilde, and a Western Mail editorial on this matter last month said:
With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to lose one director of education may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose four looks like carelessness. What's going on?
It adds that Geoffrey Drought, one of our finest directors of education in Wales, resigned only last week because of the problems and the complications of opt-out schools and what that would bring.
Education is in a sorry state in the Principality, not only because of the resignations, but because of the cuts that the Minister has imposed, and because of unease about the membership of the new quango, if it is set up.
Can we ensure that the quango will include professional and local education authority membership and people representing the churches in Wales—a vital element? What about the Welsh joint education committee, which the Minister and the Government have consistently bypassed since the beginning of the debate on grant-maintained schools and opt-out education? That, too, should be involved.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement about the introduction of new unitary authorities in Wales. If the White Paper is made into an Act of Parliament, there will be about 21 new unitary authorities, which will all be local education authorities. What will be the impact on grant-maintained schools and the Schools Funding Council? We were not told in Committee when the Schools Funding Council is to be set up. With smaller unitary authorities, is it on the cards that the funding council will be set up sooner rather than later?
About 90 years ago, when the House debated education legislation introduced by Mr. Balfour, reference was made to the situation in Wales, where a partnership between local and central government had been established at the end of the 19th century. There is no doubt that that partnership has worked remarkably well and has meant that Welsh schools are some of the finest in the United Kingdom. I fear that unless we accept the amendments and others like them, education in Wales will be in a sorry state.

Mr. David Congdon: Clause 1 concerns the funding agency and some hon. Members seem to have a misleading impression about its exact role. Given the success of grant-maintained schools and their growth, many people argue that there had to be a body similar to the funding agency simply to fund on an equitable basis schools that have become grant maintained. As we fully support grant-maintained schools, it is right and proper that a funding agency should be set up.
The confusion seems to have occurred over the agency's planning role and the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) compounded misunderstanding about its role in that respect. As I understand it, when 10 per cent. of primary pupils in a local education authority area have

gone grant maintained, the funding agency for that sector of education in the area is likely to be set up; we debated that at great length in Committee.
The funding agency's planning function is very narrow: it must plan places for schools in the grant-maintained sector. It will not be in a position to dictate to parents of children in all other LEA schools in the area. Rightly and properly, there must be some liaison between the LEA and the funding agency, to put proposals to the Secretary of State. It is easy for Opposition Members to make a mountain out of a molehill over those arrangements.
The reality is that grant-maintained schools are likely to be heavily over-subscribed and LEA schools might be under-subscribed. It would be for the LEA to determine which schools in its area need to be closed. Conversely, grant-maintained schools might feel that demand was so great that they ought to expand, and in that case I am sure that proposals would be put forward to the funding agency to set up new and much-welcomed grant-maintained schools.
There is a danger of Opposition Members protesting too much about the role of the funding agency when the 10 per cent. figure is reached.

Mr. David Jamieson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the funding agency would increase the number of places in grant-maintained schools even if there were vacancies in LEA schools in that particular area?

Mr. Congdon: No, I am not. That issue would, quite rightly, be for the Secretary of State to decide. It may well be that it would be right and proper for a school that is undersubscribed in the LEA sector to be closed and reopened as a successful grant-maintained school.
Conservative Members want schools to be provided to which parents wish to send their children. We do not want schools to be provided simply because the bureaucrats at the LEA town hall wish to provide schools in a particular location. The education system must adapt to suit the source of the demand for places so that it meets the legitimate choice of parents of school for their children.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I have been dying to ask him this question for some time. Given that he is so keen on parental choice, why, when he was a member of the education authority in Croydon, was he prepared to sell off Sylvan high school, despite the fact that 97 per cent. of the parents wanted it to remain as an LEA school?

Mr. Congdon: I am delighted by that intervention, because it reveals that the hon. Lady's research is somewhat inadequate. In reality, only about 45 Croydon parents put the school as their first choice out of a possible intake of 240. That school did not serve the needs of Croydon parents; it is particularly revealing that it served the needs of parents who were otherwise forced to send their children to inadequate schools within ILEA. Those parents voted with their feet by sending their children to a Croydon school. The LEA had no problem with taking the important decision to provide a city technology college in north Croydon, which is in my constituency and is now massively over-subscribed

Mr. Dafis: Great emphasis is laid on the fact that the move towards grant-maintained status is a matter of parental choice. The hon. Gentleman has now offered another possibility, which the Minister might like to consider. He has suggested that if a school can be identified as a failure and closed, it can be reopened as a grant-maintained school. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that provides an interesting possibility for the Government to push ahead the movement towards grant-maintained status?

Mr. Congdon: With all due respect, two separate issues are involved. One issue relates to a school that has failed and the setting up of an educational association, which will lead to a grant-maintained school. The other issue, of equal importance, relates to schools that are under-subscribed. In those circumstances, the LEA should look at the number of places that need to be provided.
I am hypothesising—I cannot predict with certainty exactly what will happen in a particular LEA area. One could envisage a situation, however, where it would be proper to bring about change to ensure that another grant-maintained school was provided to reflect parental demand better.
We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the fact that the measures designed to create more grant-maintained schools are centralising ones, which represent the nationalisation of schools. What a load of nonsense. The fundamental point about the Bill and previous measures is that the only way in which an existing school can become grant maintained is by exercising a democratic—I stress the word—ballot.
I find it odd that Opposition Members are so afraid of parents exercising a democratic vote to decide whether their children's school should go grant maintained. We have heard a lot about the scare tactics that have been adopted and the rumours that have been spread to try to influence the vote of a particular school on grant-maintained status.
In many ways the Bill, contains few measures to increase the GM balloting process because we have a lot of faith in parents voting firmly for their schools to go grant maintained. I very much regret the talk of bribes given to schools to go grant maintained. Schools were given an extra amount of money to cover the costs of setting up, and, more importantly, to reflect LEA central costs. If LEAs find that difficult, they should look at their central costs to reduce them in line with their specific needs. I do not call that bribery. We need to encourage more schools to become grant maintained so that we have diversity in the education system.
I do not know why Opposition Members are so afraid of the setting up of a funding agency with two key powers. The first one is to ensure the funding is calculated on an equitable basis to the schools—as the numbers grow, that will become more important. Its second key power—a comparatively limited role—involves the planning process. Grant-maintained schools will not tread on the toes of the massive number of LEA schools in the region.
If Opposition Members are right and grant-maintained schools will not grow in numbers and flourish, Opposition Members have nothing to fear as the funding agency will barely come into effect. But if, as Conservatives expect, grant-maintained schools flourish, we need to have—and will have—funding agencies that exercise a valuable role.

Mr. Jamieson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who was telling us about the city technology college in his district. I thought that he would say that it had obtained the poorest results in GCSE mathematics, modern languages and technology in Croydon in 1992, but he stopped short of telling us that.

Mr. Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jamieson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in time, when I have developed what I have to say a little further.
In Committee we were told that, in 20 out of 116 local education authorities, more than 10 per cent. of their schools had opted out. I repeat the statistic for the benefit of the Secretary of State, who was not present at any time during the Committee stage and might not be aware of the figure. It means that, in those districts, control of the education system will soon be in the hands of two competing organisations: the funding agency and the local education authority. Both will have responsibility for providing places, closing and opening schools, and admissions procedure.
We know that the two organisations will be competing, because the Secretary of State told us so on Second Reading. He said:
There will be two bodies—the LEA and the funding agency—with parallel but not shared responsibilities. A little healthy competition will be no bad thing for some LEAs." —[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 635.]
It will be the surest recipe for chaos and confusion, as the two organisations compete to provide the same services. In the confusion, what will be missed is a clear and unequivocal chain of accountability for public funds to parents and local taxpayers. Who will the parents contact with their queries and who will have the responsibility of resolving disputes?
Are we to anticipate struggles ahead between the two bodies as they battle it out over the interpretation of key powers—perhaps in the courts, and certainly at the taxpayers' expense? It is intended that, when the 75 per cent. opt-out threshold has been reached, the funding agencies will take over total control of delivery of the education service in the region, hitherto delivered by the LEA. I hope that the Minister will answer the following question: what rights and democratic procedures will be followed for the 25 per cent. of schools that have not at that time held ballots on opting out? Will they compulsorily become grant-maintained schools against the parents' wishes?
We know that the Secretary of State has funding for his unelected quango to mushroom its bureaucracy. The White Paper stated that that was the only organisation to receive extra funding. For the benefit of the Secretary of State, who was not present during our deliberations in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who is present now, told us in Committee that there would be funding for party placemen on the education associations—but more of that tomorrow.
Only the most perverse logic would lead one to believe that two bodies running in parallel and performing the same tasks will lead to lower costs and less bureaucracy. Eventually, as more schools opt out, the funding agency's costs will rise, because it will have to perform many of the


functions currently undertaken by the LEA and administer many of the new powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to give the impression that the agency will be little more than a streamlined post office, sending monthly cheques to grant-maintained schools with the aid of the funding formula, with a minimal need for individual judgment. That view was reinforced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). I think that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was being ingeniously misleading, while the remarks of the hon. Member for Castle Point, who I note is not in his place, stem from his ignorance of the Bill.
For the information of those two hon. Gentlemen and other right hon. and hon. Members, the funding agency's responsibilities will be more than handing out funds to GM schools. Once the 75 per cent. threshold has been passed, the agency will have responsibility for opening and closing schools, regulating the number of school places, admissions procedures, appeals, capital allocations, and many other tasks. It will not be a simple organisation whose purpose will merely be to hand over funds to GM schools, for it will replicate many of the responsibilities and duties now vested in LEAs.
Although the Minister said that there will be one funding agency, he stated that it would be free to develop in response to the rate at which the GM school sector grows. It will not therefore be a carefully regulated body of limited size. I thought that it was being likened to an educational bonsai tree—of limited size but mature growth. Instead, it will be more like an educational Russian vine, spreading its bureaucratic tentacles into every part of the country.
I turn to the Prime Minister's extraordinary comments at a Tory local government conference at the weekend. I am surprised that such a body still exists, given the Government's constant erosion of local authority powers. Perhaps in future the Prime Minister will be addressing the Tory quango-goers conference. The Prime Minister said that
it's time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.
I contrast that remark with a recent report that received approval from Tory-controlled Devon county council. Commenting on the Bill, it stated:
Many people now believe that the future of local government and local democratic accountability are themselves at stake.
At last weekend's Conservative local government conference the Prime Minister spoke also of
a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them.
Devon county council commented on the White Paper:
At times the White Paper seems to lose sight of the role of the LEA as a resource and protector for the individual parent or pupil and as a focus of local knowledge and accountability. It is difficult to see how a funding agency could be other than remote, unresponsive, ignorant of local issues and unaccountable to local feelings.
The Prime Minister is totally out of touch with local government and is even out of touch with those in his own party who are in local government.
As to GM schools, which are taking a one-way ticket to Government control, Government arguments about

parent power and local democracy would have had more credibility if Ministers had accepted the Labour amendment to allow schools to opt back in to LEA control. That amendment gave the Government an opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in the opting-out system, but it was rejected.
One of the first schools to become grant maintained was the highly successful Dorset comprehensive, Woodroffe school—once hailed as the flagship of opt-out philosophy. I am sure that the Government would agree that it is instructive to examine establishments that have direct experience for indications of the worth of the policies on which they are now embarking. After its first year of trading in the grant-maintained market place, the school was reported to have debts of £100,000, culminating in the loss of seven teachers, the disarray of the PTA and the suspension of the head teacher.
9.45 pm
I shall not dwell on all the problems experienced by the school, but it is interesting to note that the chairman of the PTA, Ken Whetlor, was reported to have said, after a year's experience of grant-maintained status,
If you had another vote on this among parents, you'd have a landslide against it.
That is why the Government do not want parents to have the power to take part in a further ballot to opt back into LEA control. They are afraid to extend democracy to parents, because they know that their dogma would be threatened.
The Bill represents a greater move by the Government towards central state control than any other provision relating to our British way of life. It will take control of education out of the hands of local, democratically elected bodies, and place it in the hands of quangos packed with politically vetted appointees of the Secretary of State. In the past 10 years, Tory Governments have implemented a number of measures. I was interested to hear the Minister describe the current proposals as "liberating". Do we consider the national curriculum liberating, or the national testing system—a system to which the Secretary of State and the Minister have received so many objections in the past few months? In fact, they have had to give way on part of their own policy. National inspection is another example.
Now, the Government want to envelop the whole system with national control of the delivery of children's education by means of the funding agency, which we are led to believe will be based in Darlington. I have no argument with anyone in Darlington, but it is a long way from Plymouth and Devon, and from many other constituencies. We are moving rapidly towards a tightly controlled, bureaucratic, centralised system, with Tory party placemen in key positions and no voice for those with opposing views. Above all, there is no place for parents to be involved in the funding agency, and to shape its thinking.
If the Bill is passed in its present form, we shall have the most centralised, state-controlled education system in the democratic world. How dangerous is an education system when the hands of politicians control every apsect of the delivery of service—when the Government decide which schools should close or stay open, who and what should be tested and even which books children should read? I fear for our democracy when a political party wants to control every aspect of our children's minds.

Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his announcement that he is to give details tomorrow of measures to stop the intimidation of schools and parents who favour ballots to opt for grant-maintained status. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make a similar announcement. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that there was a civil war in Wales on the issue: those are his words, not mine. His party and its bully boys have been running around Wales intimidating schools for the past two years.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Richards: No; I have not much time.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) said that once the schools have held a ballot, that is the end of the matter. Is she seriously suggesting that she would wish schools to ballot time and again? If so, how frequently would she wish them to undergo such uncertainty and how frequently would she wish teachers' careers perhaps to be threatened if schools were reintroduced into the local education authority system?

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: It is ironic that Conservative Members should question the notion of balloting when they are so insistent that every governing body must make a decision every year about grant-maintained status. The point that I was making, but which the hon. Gentleman failed to grasp so I shall repeat it for his benefit, is that one set of parents ballots to opt out of the local education authority, but the next set of parents—their children and their children's children—does not have the opportunity to ballot to opt back in. That is undemocratic.

Mr. Richards: My point is that it would create uncertainty for schools.
The hon. Member for Torfaen said that four directors of education in Wales had resigned because of the Government's policy. Is he seriously suggesting that those directors set themselves up as martyrs for education in Wales? Of course they did not. The four directors of education in Wales could see the writing on the wall. They could see the prospect of their empires crumbling, so they took early retirement with very generous settlements.
The hon. Gentleman also says that there is no demand for grant-maintained schools in Wales. There are already 90 schools ready for grant-maintained status. Once my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stops the bully boys in jackboots riding roughshod over Wales there will be an avalanche of schools wanting to acquire grant-maintained status.

Mr. Dafis: I shall be brief and try to hammer home some of the points already made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I speak especially to amendment No. 38 and wish to emphasise the near unanimous opposition to the Bill in Wales.
I draw the House's attention to a declaration signed by a coalition of 10 bodies involved in education in Wales. The Western Mail described the declaration as an unprecedented act. The declaration states:
It is the joint and considered view of the representatives that the Education Bill is inappropriate to the current needs of young people across Wales, and it is likely to have a detrimental effect on educational opportunities and educational standards within the schools of Wales. Such is the

strength of these concerns that it is vital that these anxieties are made known, as a matter of urgency, to parents across Wales.
The organisations involved are the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales, Parents for Welsh-Medium Education, the National Association of Head Teachers in Wales, the Welsh League of Youth, the Wales Assembly of Women, the National Union of Teachers for Wales, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers in Wales, Assistant Master and Mistresses Association in Wales, the National Association of the Teachers of Wales and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. If anyone speaks for education in Wales, those bodies do.
I support amendment No. 38 because, although it fails to make a clear distinction between Wales and England, it nevertheless offers a way of dealing with the difference between England and Wales in one highly significant matter—the membership of quangos.
If it were not so disgraceful, the situation would be laughable. It seems that the best method of advancement in Welsh public life is to be a Tory or, better still, a Tory candidate at a general election. In my constituency, two previous unsuccessful Tory candidates have found themselves on the East Dyfed district health authority. The wife of a third has been transferred from the health authority to the managing board of the local hospital trust. That is an appalling state of affairs and it is even worse that it should happen in education. It is bad enough that powers should be removed from local democratically elected bodies to a funding agency which is a quango. It is worse still that membership of the body should be in the gift of the Secretary of State for Wales, any Secretary of State for Wales, but particularly a Tory Secretary of State.
If present evidence is any guide, the Secretary of State will select Tories for such a body—a high proportion, anyway. They will certainly be Tory sympathisers or people acceptable to the Tory party in Wales, in which case— and this is the point—by definition those people will hold values that are incompatible with those of the majority of the people in Wales. That is especially offensive in relation to education where our whole tradition is egalitarian, collaborative and co-operative. That is our tradition, particularly in education.
It is crucial that membership of the Schools Funding Council, if it comes into existence, which is by no means certain, should, to some degree, reflect the values of the people of Wales.
Such a council could have a far-reaching effect; it could open or close schools and, crucially, could propose a change of schools' characters. Clause 88 empowers the council to do that and that would mean, in most cases, a proposal to change the character of a school to make it selective. The council could profoundly change provision in Wales and adopt a master plan for restoration of a system of tripartite education that the Secretary of State thinks so highly of in the White Paper.
It is true that electors and local education authorities could raise objections, but it would be idle to pretend that a funding council, backed by the Secretary of State, would not have an enormously influential effect on the development of education in Wales.
The amendment offers a mechanism to provide some control and check on the nature and membership of the council and I support it because of that and because it would modify the deeply undemocratic nature of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): It seems the fashion in these debates to leave no time for a Minister to wind up and it is clear that Opposition Members do not want to hear what the Government have to say.
I intended to speak only to amendment No. 38 which has a Welsh dimension, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) would probably not wish to share these three minutes with me, I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying a few words about the other two amendments. All are similar in subjecting the appointments to these two bodies to parliamentary scrutiny of one kind or another.
I want to contrast the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because my hon. Friend talked about the freedom that we were giving to parents, freeing power to go from the hub to the rim of the wheel, while the hon. Member for Torfaen began his speech by talking about fears. He was talking not about the fears of parents but about the fears of vested interests in the education system in Wales.
Having sat throughout the Committee stage and having listened throughout the debate this evening, I am sensitive to the fact that the Labour party is somewhat embarrassed that it is not on the popular side in this argument. The Labour party wants to turn the argument somehow, so that it appears to be on the side of parents, but we are the ones who clearly believe in parental ballots, and we are transferring power to the parents.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) referred to 10 bodies, including the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is very much a vested interest in the education system in Wales. I ask him to look beyond that facade of education. Let him go and talk to the headmasters and headmistresses, as I did when I spoke to members of the Welsh Secondary Schools Association in Llandrindod Wells. If he spoke to those people, the hon. Gentleman would get an entirely different view of the meaning of the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 272.

Division No. 166]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blunkett, David


Ainger, Nick
Boateng, Paul


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boyce, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Stephen


Austin-Walker, John
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Stuart
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)





Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbett, Robin
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cryer, Bob
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dafis, Cynog
Leighton, Ron


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Denham, John
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Donohoe, Brian H.
McFall, John


Dowd, Jim
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Milburn, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Garrett, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Harvey, Nick
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pickthall, Colin


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Raynsford, Nick


Hoyle, Doug
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hutton, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Illsley, Eric
Rogers, Allan


Ingram, Adam
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ruddock, Joan






Sedgemore, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wallace, James


Short, Clare
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. John Spellar and


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Dicks, Terry


Atkins, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Booth, Hartley
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Eallng N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, William


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Congdon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyra For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan





Hawkins, Nick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawksley, Warren
Rathbone, Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Redwood, John


Heald, Oliver
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Richards, Rod


Hendry, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Horam, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jesse 1, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spring, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knox, David
Steen, Anthony


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stephen, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stern, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stewart, Allan


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sumberg, David


Lidington, David
Sweeney, Walter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sykes, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


MacKay, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Maclean, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Malone, Gerald
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Marlow, Tony
Trend, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Milligan, Stephen
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Needham, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Willefts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Patten, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

MADAM SPEAKER then put the Question on all remaining amendments up to the end of clause 143, moved by a member of the Government

Clause 6

SUPERVISION OF FUNDING AUTHORITIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 179, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the funding authority unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 8

DIRECTION TO ADMIT CHILD TO SPECIFIED SCHOOL

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 4, line 23, after 'area' insert
'of a local education authority'.

No. 84, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'in the area'.

No. 85, in page, 4, line 31, at end insert—

'( ) A direction under this section shall, unless it is given on the determination of the Secretary of State under section 9(4) of this Act or by the funding authority, specify a school in the area referred to in subsection (1) above.'

No. 86, in page 4, line 41, leave out from 'Act' to 'references' in line 42.

No. 87, in page 4, line 43, after first 'authority' insert 'subject to subsection (6A) below'.

No. 88, in page 4, line 45, leave out from second 'schools' to end of line 5 on page 5 and insert—

'(6A) Where the education which is suitable education for the child is also education of a kind to which an order under section 7(1)(b) of this Act applies made in respect of the area referred to in subsection (1) above, references in this section and section 9 of this Act to the appropriate authority are to be read in relation to—

(a) that child, and
(b) any maintained school (other than a maintained special school) or grant—maintained school in that area, and any such school in any other area to which an order under section 7(1)(b) of this Act applies which provides education which is relevant education in relation to that order,

as references to the funding authority'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 15

DUTY TO COMPILE INFORMATION AND CONDUCT RESEARCH ABOUT PROVISION OF EDUCATION

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section so as to secure, in particular, the provision of information relating to the provision of education for children with special educational needs.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 16

"GRANT—MAINTAINED SCHOOLS"

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 8, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—

'(1) A school conducted by a governing body incorporated under this Part of this Act, or Chapter IV of Part I

of the Education Reform Act 1988, for the purpose of conducting the school shall be known as a grant—maintained school.
(2) A governing body may be incorporated under this Part of this Act—'.

No. 58, in page 9, line 5, leave out
'under Chapter IX of this Part of this Act'
and insert 'published under Chapter IX'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 25

POWER TO DECLARE BALLOT VOID FOR IRREGULARITY

Amendments made: No. 143, in page 13, line 8, leave out 'or'.

No. 144, in page 13, line 10. at end insert—
'( ) that persons other than those eligible to do so have purported to vote in a ballot so held,
( ) that ballot papers returned for the purposes of a ballot so held have been marked by persons other than those to whom they were issued or those duly authorised to act on their behalf,
( ) that persons who were eligible to vote in a ballot so held have been prevented or hindered from doing so, or from doing so freely in accordance with their own opinions, by any other person, or
( ) that voting in a ballot so held is likely to have been influenced to a significant extent by the dissemination of information appearing to the Secretary of State to be to a material extent false or misleading'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Schedule 3

PROPOSALS FOR SCHOOLS TO BECOME, OR BE ESTABLISHED AS, GRANT—MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 138, in page 169, line 3, after second 'such', insert 'form and'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 62

POWERS OF GOVERNING BODY

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 36, line 21, at end insert
'except money lent under section ( Loans to governing bodies of grant—maintained schools) of this Act'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 73

MAINTENANCE GRANTS

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 44, line 13, at end insert
'and grant regulations may provide for determinations (and revisions) to be made by reference to amounts determined or redetermined for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 75

CAPITAL GRANTS

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 45, line 16, at end insert—
'( ) Before giving a direction under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the funding authority.' —[ Mr. Patten.]

Clause 76

IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENTS ON GOVERNING BODY IN RECEIPT OF GRANT

Amendment made: No. 145, in page 46, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
'may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.

( ) That amount is—

(a) the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or
(b) so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant,

whichever is the greater'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 82

IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENTS ON GOVERNING BODY IN RECEIPT OF GRANT

Amendment made: No. 146, in page 49, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert—
'may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the Secretary of State of the whole or any part of the following amount.

() That amount is—

(a) the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or
(b) so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant,

whichever is the greater'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 86

PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 84

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 51, line 46, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 47 and insert
'by virtue of regulations under section 51 or 52 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 107

DISPOSAL OF SCHOOL PROPERTY: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 66, line 14, leave out
`such an order'.

No. 63, in page 66, line 15, at beginning insert 'such an order'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 137

CASES WHERE NO REQUIREMENT FOR CHRISTIAN COLLECTIVE WORSHIP

Amendment made: No. 130, in page 84, line 9, leave out
'122 of this Act' and insert
'127 of the Education Act 1993'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 148

QUALIFIED DUTY TO SECURE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN ORDINARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 80, line 27, leave out from 'school' to end of line 26.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 173, in clause 149, page 89, line 39, leave out 'use their best endeavours,'.
No. 74, in page 89, line 40, leave out `to secure' and insert 'ensure'.
No. 50, in clause 155, page 93, line 12, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(c) where the named school in subsection (b) above is a special school, specify which of the conditions listed in section 148 subsection (2) above apply, and'.
No. 51, in schedule 9, page 180, line 36, after 'school', insert
'or other school providing education solely for children with special educational needs, approved under section 172 of this Act'.
No. 97, in clause 156, page 93, line 36, leave out `subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.

Mr. Griffiths: In this group of amendments, there are five different debates. The first can perhaps be dealt with quickly, because it is to some extent a semantic exercise, but it needs to be put on the record that, strictly speaking, the words in clause 148—
unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent"—
are not necessary, because the statementing process in clause 155 adequately covers all the rights that any parent has.
In correspondence with me, the Under—Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), dealt explicitly with the point. He said that, if a parent decided that the choice offered under clause 148 was incompatible with his or her wishes, the rights and duties of LEAs contained in clause 148 would fall away completely. The rights of parents in clause 155 and schedule 9 to appeal against the choice of school that a local authority may nominate in the statement will be upheld. I would maintain that the words referring to incompatibility with parental choice are an unnecessary veto in clause 148, because the parents have exactly the same rights in clause 155. The special educational consortium pointed out that those words in clause 148 were undesirable.
10.15 pm
The purpose of the following amendments in the group is to strengthen the duties of the governors to provide for children with special educational needs. The Bill as drafted mirrors the Education Act 1981, yet part III of the Bill is designed to improve the provisions in the 1981 Act, because it has been shown over the past 10 years that there are very good reasons for including provisions, some of which are in part III, to strengthen the rights of parents of children with special educational needs.
In the Bill as drafted, the governors are enjoined to
use their best endeavours
in providing for children with special educational needs. Amendment No. 73 would place a duty on governors to ensure that the special educational needs of any child were properly met without question. There is no doubt that, over the past decade, governors could say that they used their best endeavours but that, unfortunately, it was impossible to provide for the special needs of a particular child. The Government could have taken this opportunity to be more positive and to place a definite duty on governors to make sure that children with special educational needs received the support they required.
The Government could argue that the provisions in part III will strengthen the statementing process, so that governors and LEAs will be duty-bound to make sure that the provisions in a statement will be met by the LEA and the school governors. That still leaves children who have special educational needs but are not deemed to be in such need as to require a statement, dependent on the best endeavours of the governors, which in the past decade have sometimes been inadequate.
There are two possibilities. First, governors could say that they had used their best endeavours but that the emotional or behavioural problems of a child were such that the school could no longer provide for that child, and exclusion rates could rise. Secondly, another child without a statement, a quiet child but a slow learner, could be left at the back of the class, and if the parents were not sufficiently concerned, the child's needs could be allowed to lapse completely, because the duty on the governors to use their best endeavours is subject to a wide interpretation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It is rather hard, in educational terms, to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is no reason for statementing children as slow learners. On the other hand, there may be some educational reason. Would the hon. Gentleman care to be more precise?

Mr. Griffiths: It could be argued that, under the Bill, a child who has been statemented will have been subjected to a process tightened up to such an extent that the needs mentioned in the statement will be provided, whereas a child who is a slow learner but is not deemed to be so badly behind as to require statementing will have his provision determined otherwise. Unless the parents are particularly concerned and careful, such children will not get the attention they deserve.
By suggesting replacement of the words "use their best endeavours" with "ensure", we are attempting to have the process tightened up. The governors would have placed on them a very real duty that they could not escape. In the past, it has been shown that the words "use their best endeavours" have been used as a means of opting out.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman knows that no one is more anxious than I to have appropriate education provided for children with special needs, especially when statementing has been carried out, when needs have been precisely shown. But I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is being realistic. If he is simply probing and saying that we ought to push further and further, I am with him, but this amendment would mean that, even in the case of a maintained nursery school, the governors might have to adapt premises forthwith, whether or not they had the resources to do so. Surely the hon. Gentleman is being a little over-ambitious in pressing an amendment in these terms.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may recall the Chinese proverb to the effect that one should aim for the stars if one wants to get to the top of the tree. That is what we are doing. We are trying to impress on the Government the fact that the wording of the 1981 Act, which has regulated governors' actions over the past decade, has been shown not always to provide in the best possible way for children with special educational needs. We are seeking

to tighten up the way in which governors are required to provide for such children, and I hope that the Government will respond positively.
I should like to move now to what is, in effect, the third part of the debate on this group of amendments. I refer to the need for a local authority, when providing a statement for a child, to specify in particular why it considers that only placement in a special school is appropriate.
Clause 148 places upon a local education authority a duty to integrate, but the Government put some conditions on how that duty is to be carried out. Account has to be taken of the needs of the child and the views of the parents, as well as factors affecting the efficient education of other children in the same class and the efficient use of resources. Thus, there are very specific conditions that a local education authority must fulfil if it is to integrate a child into a mainstream school. We would make it incumbent on a local education authority to specify which of those reasons applied when, in a statement, it named a special school to which the child should go.
It is important to consider the background to the amendment. In the HMI Audit Commission report "Getting In On The Act", 36 per cent. of parents with children in special schools said that they would prefer to have their children in ordinary schools, with all the specialist support needed to enable that placement to be maintained in an effective manner. On the other hand, 11 per cent. of parents with children in ordinary schools wanted their children to be in special schools. So there was a much greater desire among parents to have their children in ordinary schools, with the specialist support being available, rather than have the children placed in special schools.
The Spastics Society did its own survey, which reached much the same view as the HMI report. It cited a particular case, that of a lady whom they called Mrs. Baldwin, with a son named Paul who had attended an integrated nursery and then went to a mainstream infant school. The head teacher at that school said of that child and of two other children, who were the first disabled children to attend the school, that he could not have them in the school because they constituted a safety risk.
Mrs. Baldwin would have liked to have fought that decision of the head teacher, but because she was recovering from a nervous breakdown, she felt that she could not go through the trauma that would be involved. However, she looked forward to the day when a local campaign might help to provide integrated schooling in her area.
So there is no doubt that many parents would like to have their children in integrated provision. In a case where the LEA felt that such integrated provision was not the best place for a child, at least by specifying the reasons, the parent could, in an informed way, decide whether to appeal against the decision.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a difficulty in the important area of special needs education is often that the circumstances that lead to a child being statemented can change over time? While I appreciate the reasons that lead the hon. Gentleman to advance the case that he is making, a local authority might be restricted to choosing a particular category when there might be a combination of categories.
Does he agree that it is crucial when dealing with special needs children to remember that the outreach which special schools provide—by providing peripatetic teachers to help in mainstream education—varies from one area to another? Is he aware that what he is suggesting could work only if that outreach was always available?

Mr. Griffiths: That is not necessarily the case, but, in any event, we are talking about a situation that should prevail, with that combination of special schools and specialist support from specialist schools or centres going out to help in mainstream schools. Our proposal would give parents specific information to enable them to decide whether to appeal against a statement.
It would also help the LEA, because by always specifying the reason for not integrating a child, the LEA could, within a year or so, review what it is doing to see whether there was some way of overcoming what might turn out to be a common problem to which there was a straightforward solution.
10.30 pm
The Spastics Society is very sure that there are good and acknowledged reasons for reducing the number of people in special schools to the bare minimum for whom there is genuinely no realistic alternative. But it believes that the continued existence of special schools should not be allowed to undermine the longstanding commitment to integration by providing an easily available alternative that bypasses the difficulties of adapting and supporting schools adequately in the task of catering for children with the widest possible range of needs.
I just want to mention an amendment put down in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). We debated this matter briefly in Committee, and the Minister said that he might wish to consider an alternative proposition, which he felt could perhaps be used by the generality of independent schools to seek state funding. I know that great care was taken to draft an amendment which would meet that concern.
We are talking here of over 100 independent special schools in England and Wales, and over 80 non-maintained special schools. Probably all those schools make highly specialist provision. The Royal National Institute for the Blind did a survey which showed that, out of 21 special schools for blind and partially sighted children, 10 were outside the maintained sector; and that for blind and partially sighted children with other severe handicaps, there was only one school in England and Wales in the maintained sector.
The issue at stake, as we see it, is that a parent should have the right to nominate such a school in exactly the same way as the Government are giving them the right to nominate a maintained school. It is entirely possible that a local education authority would decide that a particular child, because of his or her specialist needs, should be placed in one of these independent or non-maintained special schools anyway.
It is also true to say that, if a parent is dissatisfied with the statementing process and with the fact that the LEA has not named an independent or non-maintained special school for the child as the most appropriate provision, the parent has the right of appeal. But that is right at the end of the statementing process and, even if we allow for the possibility of local authorities managing to do their statements in six months, going to the tribunal will take

another one, two or three months—who knows how long? —and it may mean that the child's needs will not be met for a long time.
I hope that the Government will therefore agree that so many parents of children who are deaf, deaf and blind, partially sighted or have profound multiple handicaps can have a meaningful choice of schools only if they are able to choose from independent and non-maintained special schools, as well as from schools in the maintained sector. It would be a small step for the Government to move from giving the parent the same right to go to the tribunal at the appeal stage as at the beginning of the process.
Earlier today, Madam Speaker was kind enough to add two amendments to the selection, because amendment No. 97 was a paving amendment for Nos. 98 and 99. We were a little disconsolate because amendment No. 40, which was suggested to us by the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education, was not selected. It would have put local authorities and schools to a greater test about making integrated provision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was deeply disappointed, because he has a long and successful track record in pursuing the rights of disabled people, and. I know that he would have liked to speak to that amendment.
Our last few amendments in the group deal with providing for arbitration. Quite a number of voluntary organisations, such as the Spastics Society and the British Dyslexia Association, were keen that there should be a stage between the end of the statementing process and the appeal to a tribunal, when parents and the local education authority could reconsider why they had not reached an agreement on the statement, and to put it to an arbitrator —on whom both would agree—who could study the evidence and come to a decision.
We are firmly of the opinion that anything that can be done to avoid the panoply of proceedings associated with a tribunal would be welcome. However user-friendly the Government may like to make a tribunal, it will be a place where highly legalistic arguments will be used about the provisions of the Bill or the clashing views of expert opinion.
Many parents have said that they would not gladly go through the existing appeals procedure again. Parents, who already have a difficult and challenging job to try to ensure that the educational and other special needs of their children are dealt with properly, then find themselves in the middle of a fight over legalistic interpretations of whose duty it is to provide what, and over conflicting expert opinions about their child's needs.
I hope that the Government will consider setting up an arbitration procedure. In Committee, we suggested that its deliberations should not take longer than 28 days, so that the statementing procedure is not held up unduly. Many parents want a new procedure to be introduced so that they can avoid having to go to the tribunal, which in itself means that the statementing procedure has been a failure.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to all the amendments in the group, because I firmly believe that that is what children with special needs need and what their parents, as well as all those voluntary organisations that work long and hard in that sector, want.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I must point out that there is a slight error in the amendment. Where it reads:

leave out from 'school' to end of line 26
it should read "line 28".

Sir John Hannam: I am puzzled by the wording of the amendment which seems to take us backwards rather than forwards.
I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 50 and 51 which were tabled by me, members of the all-party disablement group and other hon. Friends. The amendments were tabled in response to representations from the Special Education Consortium and other disability organisations. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has been extremely helpful in receiving numerous delegations and correspondence on special needs education. I had hoped to secure his acceptance of an earlier amendment that would have ensured that membership of the funding agency included someone with knowledge of special needs. For some reason, that amendment was not selected, so I now express the hope that we can achieve further progress in a slightly different direction for parents who want to be able to make the correct choice of school for their child.
Amendment No. 50 would amend clause 155 so that if an LEA does not name an ordinary school in the statement, it will be required to spell out the reason or reasons for not doing so. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, clause 148 sets out a qualified duty on LEAs
to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools.
That duty is conditional on the needs of the child being met, the views of the parents, the efficient education of other children in the school and the efficient use of resources. Our amendment to clause 155 is designed to help parents by giving them information at an early stage to which they would ultimately have access should they pursue their case to appeal.
It would be desirable and in line with the Government's policy on open government and access to information that that information should be noted on each statement and, therefore, be accessible to the parents as soon as a decision has been made. That information would also enable LEAs to monitor their procedures and take account of that information when reviewing and planning provision.
The Government have clearly expressed their support for the principle enshrined in the Education Act 1981 that pupils with special needs should be educated in ordinary schools to the maximum extent practicable. Hon. Members who were here on Friday for the debate on anti-discrimination legislation will be aware that the move towards the integration of special needs pupils into ordinary schools has progressed slowly in many LEAs. It is an important matter.
If the reasons given by LEAs for not offering integrated placements were monitored, it would establish whether the Government's intentions on integration were being frustrated. It could reveal if the reverse were the case and a particular LEA was proceeding with integration too fast, against the wishes of parents. That would also become apparent from the number of cases in which parental wishes were cited as the reason for not offering a placement in an ordinary school.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is talking about a fascinating and important sector of education. Is he implying that some LEAs would ignore, for some reason, suggestions made by the educational psychologists about

a child's education? Is it suggested that the educational psychologist might not give the full reasons for riot pressing for integration or non-integration? I am not quite clear—will my hon. Friend clarify that issue?

Sir John Hannam: It does not relate to that subject. It is basically because the aim of the 1981 Act was to integrate as far as possible the 18 out of 20 pupils with special needs who would be best educated with their peers at normal schools. The other 2 per cent. were estimated to need special-school education. That was the Government's intention as clearly laid down in that Act. However, unless the amendment is accepted, evidence in the educational psychologists' reports or wherever will not be seen clearly to show why the child is not being integrated in a normal school.
The local education authority will not have that information on the record in order to make its planning decisions for the future and to provide the necessary resources in normal schools for the provision of the special units for educating children with special needs. In addition, there will be no clear evidence of when an education authority is trying to integrate too many children after not providing the necessary special units.
The amendment is designed to achieve information and would have a neutral effect on integration. It is important because it would produce information about integration, both to individual parents, so that they know what is happening, and collectively to the education service. The amendment was tabled in order to place information on the record for parents and the education authorities. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the amendment's constructive intention which is very much in line with the Government's basic policy on integration.
Amendment No. 51 switches to the special school sector and deals with what is considered to be a right of the parents of children whose needs are more complex or severe and who may need highly specialist provision that is available only in the non-maintained sector. Under schedule 9 to the Bill, the parent receiving a copy of the proposed statement from the education authority is enabled
to express a preference as to the maintained school or grant-maintained school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child and to give reasons for his preference.
At the crucial stage of the drafting of the statement, when parents have already undergone the full assessment procedures with their child and are ready to express a preference for a school—whether maintained or non-maintained—a choice is not provided for them. To give them the right to express a preference for one sort of school, but not the other, at that stage may set up antagonisms that could run through and echo around the later decisions about the final statement.
We all know from our experience with parents of children with special needs how totally involved they are in their children's upbringing and how incredibly hung up they can become if they feel that they are being frustrated by those in authority over them.

Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a particular difficulty for denominational special schools in the non-maintained sector? Will he add their cause to his cause, as they are of a piece?

Sir John Hannam: I was not aware of that aspect, as I had not received any representations. However, I know that non-maintained special schools in my constituency are often linked with particular religious orders, and different groups and trusts set up to establish special schools.
I believe that expressing a preference at that earlier stage should help to reduce reliance on the later stages of decision-making and on the use of the proposed tribunal system of appeals.
As we all know from constituency experience, a large proportion of special education is provided by excellent non-maintained special schools for the blind, deaf and physically disabled. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to the Royal National Institute for the Blind's 1992 survey, which showed that 22 per cent. of visually impaired children attend a special school for the visually impaired. Of the 21 special schools in the whole of England and Wales, 10—nearly half—are non-maintained.
One such school for the blind, and a superb one at that, is in my constituency—where we also have the Royal West of Englnad school for the deaf. It is one of the schools that have successfully been developing vision for children with dual sensory handicaps, which is a tremendous step forward. Both are non-maintained special schools.
The amendment does not argue for an unfettered right for parents to have their child placed in their preferred school, but seeks the right merely to express a preference from among available and appropriate provision from the same point that other parents are able to do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that parents have the opportunity to express their views generally, as part of the statement process, and that if the final statement does not accept those views, parents can appeal. My hon. Friend the Minister argued therefore that non-maintained special schools, if they are good enough, will continue to be supported. If that system is sufficient to allow parental preference to be indicated, why not leave it as it is for all schools? Why pick out maintained and grant-maintained schools and leave out non-maintained special schools?
The Bill provides an extra means of attending to parental preference by allowing parents to express a preference at the beginning of the process but only for maintained schools. Consequently, if a parent lives in an area where all special schools are non-maintained—such as in the south-west—their opportunity to have their preference is reduced. All schools in my area of the south-west are non-maintained. Certainly parents can appeal—but surely that is not the path that we want to go down, because it would be establishing a placement system based on litigation.
My hon. Friend the Minister argued that the right to express a preference for a non-maintained or independent school would open the floodgates and that schools that choose to be independent should not expect the protection of statute. I accept that point in relation to independent schools because there is, in their case, the possibility of someone making a profit—though I do not necessarily accept that as a reason for excluding them.
Parents will only have the right to express a preference —not to demand funding. The LEA would still be bound to decide whether such a placement represented an efficient use of resources. If it thinks that the school is too expensive, the LEA has a cast-iron reason for refusing. Non-maintained schools are different—they cannot make a profit. They are established not from a desire to be

independent of the LEA management but because many minority disabilities are best catered for on a regional basis. All their placements are LEA funded. They are eligible for capital grants from the Department for Education and they are extremely grateful for the generous amounts that they have received from the Department for extensions and developments.
Those schools are an integral part of the education system, and even if independent special schools cannot be included in the choice, surely the excellent non-maintained special schools should be part of the expressed parental choice.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider my request and will make the necessary change to schedule 9.

Mr. Hall: When the White Paper "Choice and Diversity" was published and the promises that went with it were made, there was an expectation that special needs problems would be addressed by the Bill. We could be forgiven for thinking that because of the statement in chapter 9 of the White Paper, on page 40, in which the Government recommitted themselves to the principle that
pupils with special educational needs … should be educated in ordinary schools to the maximum extent possible".
The interesting words are
to the maximum extent possible".
The special needs lobby was given assurances by the Secretary of State that special educational needs provision would be improved in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Exeter—

Sir John Hannam: Hon. Member.

Mr. Hall: I stand corrected. No doubt the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) looks forward to the promotion that I have offered him, and perhaps it will be forthcoming.
I have often commended the Education Act 1981 to the House as a forward-looking piece of educational legislation, with the proviso that it is the only educational legislation since 1979 that has had any educational merit. It was put on the statute book by Mark Carlisle, then Member of Parliament for Runcorn—my next-but-one predecessor, now Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The Act enshrined in statute the 1978 Warnock report, which dealt with special educational needs.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, although the Bill was enacted in 1981, it did not come into effect until 1983 when it was implemented by regulations. Commendably, it sought to remove the categorisation of handicap in education—a worthwhile move. It went on to say that pupils' special educational needs should be made specific in individual statements. That was an excellent piece of legislation: it really meant that provision for such pupils would be needs-led rather than resource-led. However, because of the limited resources allowed to local education authorities, the statementing procedure is clearly resource-led now.

Mrs. Lait: Does the hon. Gentleman remember our debate in Committee on Baroness Warnock's later thoughts about her report? Last autumn, she suggested that she considered the report naive, and thought that many of her recommendations were not valid today.

Mr. Hall: I do not agree that that applies to many of the recommendations; in any case, everyone is entitled to


revise his opinions. I still consider it good educational practice for the special educational needs of an individual pupil to be set down in a statement rather than being subjected to categorisation. That was the wonderful thing about the 1981 Act. We hoped that this Bill would include measures enabling the statementing procedure again to become means-led rather than resource-led. Unfortunately, when we put our views to the Minister on 26 January—I had questioned him before—he said:
No, I will not confirm anything of the kind."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1993; c. 1136.]
He went on to give an exposition of why the statementing procedure would still have to be resource-led. Clause 149 extends those arguments.
We hoped that the Bill, bad though it is, would produce some increase in provision for special educational needs, but the Government have missed that opportunity in drafting clause 149. If, even at this late stage, the Minister accepted the amendment, we would go some way towards addressing the problem.
I part company with the hon. Member for Exeter on another important issue. The Warnock report stated that, at any one time, approximately 20 per cent. of the school population would have special educational needs, that 2 per cent. of those would require a statement, and that 18 per cent. would have such needs at some point in their school careers. At no point did the report say that the 2 per cent. with statements should be educated in special schools. Both the report and the White Paper spoke of the integration of pupils with special educational needs into ordinary schools. That is another reason why those of us in education, with an interest in special education., find clause 149 very disappointing. It provides the Government, and schools, with a get-out.
If integration is to succeed in the education system, it must have the necessary funding. Funds must be available to ensure that pupils' special educational needs are best met in their own schools. I see that the Secretary of State agrees with that.
Clause 149 includes the words "best endeavours",
which disappoints us. It states that schools shall use
their best endeavours … in exercising their functions in relation to the school … to secure that if any registered pupil has special educational needs the special educational provision which his learning difficulty calls for is made".
It is a get-out clause. We are entitled to say that it contains two obstructions to integration. The first is registration.
11 pm
Until a pupil is registered in a school, the clause's provisions do not come into effect. Some pupils will then be excluded from schools either temporarily or permanently. However, more important are the words "best endeavours". If a school has a pupil with special educational needs but the school's best endeavours do not meet those needs, how will they be met? Will they be ignored at that school because of the operation of clause 149? The answer must be yes, which is why the words "best endeavours" must be removed. If they are removed, the school will have a duty to meet the needs of such a pupil. It is worth remembering that 18 per cent. of pupils with special educational needs might not have a statement and their needs could remain unmet.
We have heard a great deal in Committee and again today about local management of schools. While the Secretary of State is here, I must tell him that if he goes to my constituency and visits any primary school which is

faced with falling rolls and which is told that it must make teachers redundant because of those falling rolls, the schools will tell him that local management of schools is sometimes not practical. Schoolteachers will be made redundant, which will disrupt the curriculum. In a couple of years' time, if the area begins to expand again, the school will have to re-employ teachers, which is an inefficient use of resources. The Secretary of State talks about the wonderful aspects of LMS, but he must remember that it means that governing bodies sometimes have to make teachers redundant, which does not go down well.
If the Government were to say that there was a ring-fenced element for special needs in their funding formula for schools, it would go some way to ensuring that pupils' special educational needs were met in their present schools. The Secretary of State would do well to consider that idea.
We have heard much about improving the statementing procedure. As someone who was directly involved in that procedure for seven years before coming to the House, I could not agree more with the Secretary of State. However, the way to do it is to employ more educational psychologists so that the professionals can get on with the job. That is the only way to reduce waiting lists and give more people access to a good tool of education. The Secretary of State may say that there is no money available, but we have to ask how he intends to put into effect the rhetoric of his promise to improve the statementing procedure.
There are further problems. What happens where special units are attached to mainstream schools and where the admissions to the schools are the responsibility of the governing bodies if they are grant maintained, and the admissions to the units are the responsibility of the local education authority, which has a duty to provide overall cover for special educational needs? What will happen when clause 149 requires schools to use their "best endeavours" to meet pupils' special educational needs?
I have a direct question about special schools applying for grant-maintained status. A later amendment deals with balloting in such schools, but will the Minister confirm now that admissions to special schools, as opposed to ordinary schools with special education facilities, will be at the behest of the local education authority, as he told the Committee? During consultation on the White Paper and subsequently, how many demands did the Minister receive from special schools that they be given the opportunity to acquire grant-maintained status? His reply could assure us that there is a demand for this move in special educational needs.
I see education as having an intrinsic value. I would like to see education that provides equality of opportunity and is freely available for all who need it. We see in the White Paper and the Bill that the Government see education as something to be bought and sold in the market place and subject to the market economy; a commodity which subjects pupils to what the Government would call the rigours of the free market place. I wonder whether the Secretary of State sees any intrinsic value in education, or does he agree with me that there should be some equality of opportunity in our system which would give every pupil the opportunity to prosper?
The Secretary of State was subjected to a television interview on Sunday when he took exception to being called arrogant. This Bill gives him 44 more powers to


exercise control over education. He seems to think that it is like "Dad's Army"-that everybody else is out of step but him. If he would listen to those in education about the demands for education, we might have a better Bill.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Adverting to the last few sentences of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), the last thing that any Minister should sensibly do is listen to the educational world for advice. The only advice I could give is to listen to what they say and then do the opposite. That seems to me a better way of behaving and I say so with all sincerity.
I am very happy to speak in support of amendment No. 51, which commands all-party support in the House. I am grateful for the explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for the lucid way in which he advanced a very compelling case for the minor changes which should be made in wording—minor but significant in terms of the message that will be given to various teachers and governors who work so hard in both non—maintained and maintained schools dealing with those with visual and hearing handicaps, among others.
The Minister will know, because he is a student of history, that I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Education Act 1980. I also served with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on the Standing Committee on the 1981 Bill dealing with disabled pupils. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was also on the Committee. She was then translated out of the House but has now come back. She led very effectively in those days. She has now matured a bit and become much more stateswomanlike, or statespersonlike, which I think is the correct term now.
That was a very good Bill because it attempted to give to parents of children who have a handicap the same rights and opportunities, inasmuch as they could be provided, as parents of children in the mainstream sector. I felt that that was a major step forward because, like the 1980 Act, it put into statute rights and responsibilities for parents. It is strange to admit in the House that, before 1980, parents had very few rights in the selection of a state school for their children. We passed the 1980 Act and gave parents more say and the right of appeal in the selection and provision of a place for their children. In 1981, we gave the same rights to parents of disabled children and introduced a range of concepts, some of which we can look back on with pleasure, but some of which need tightening up. Certainly, in my day, I felt that the statementing procedure was far too lengthy in arriving at a decision.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will embark on the attack on those authorities, rather like St. George of Worcester, slaying the dragon. I commend to the House the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. For example, there are 21 special schools in the whole country that cater especially for visually impaired or blind children. I believe that 10 of them are non-maintained. There is a problem over indicating a preference, a problem over access and a problem of the downgrading of the choice of such a non-maintained school for those who teach and work in the schools. That aspect has not been mentioned tonight, but it is important in the context of perception.
The fact that there are so few schools means that there cannot be one in every local authority area or every neighbourhood, as we should like, because of the sheer

difficulty of numbers. In Kent, there is a school for the blind—Dorton House, in Sevenoaks. That is our nearest school. It happens to be non-maintained. If it did not exist, if it were taken away, or if its numbers were reduced, some of my constituents' children would be denied access to their nearest school. We talk about extending choice, yet in that case there would be no choice-or at least no easy or immediate choice-for my constituents who might wish to send their children to a non-maintained school such as Dorton House, which is well respected in the south-east.
Because of the scatter of such schools across the country, whether they are maintained or non-maintained, there will still be problems of access. The Minister must consider that. There is great uncertainty in those schools at present. A robust and positive response from my hon. Friend would go down very well, and would settle the nerves of the people who do such marvellous work in the schools.
There is also the vital question of parental choice. We all live in a realistic world, and we know that we can talk only of preference rather than of choice, in that choice cannot be maximised in every case. If a school that takes 120 pupils is over-subscribed by a factor of four, clearly more than 300 people will be disappointed. We know that that is true of mainstream schools.
The amendment deals with a smaller number of schools for the visually handicapped. It refers only to allowing parents to express a preference. If that preference cannot be met, just as preferences cannot always be met for children who attend mainstream schools, parents will fully understand, so long as the procedures are clear and they have a right of appeal and a right to an input. If my hon. Friend listens to the arguments on the subject that have been advanced from both sides of the House, the signal that he will give will be superb, and he will go down, as I believe that he will, as a superb education Minister—especially if he does as I ask.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House long, because I had the opportunity in Committee to voice many of the arguments. However, I am aware that some hon. Members are hearing the arguments for the first time.
I begin by talking about some of the difficulties regarding special needs that arise in my constituency—and, I am sure, in many others—which the Bill will do nothing to correct. Those difficulties are caused by the problem of funding. I know that funding may not be a popular subject to mention to Ministers at this time. In view of the general state of the economy, it may be unrealistic to think about more money for education just now. None the less, over the past few years local education authorities' funds have become increasingly tight, and their ability to supply additional support in the classroom for children with special educational needs has been reduced.
Parents of pupils with special educational needs are now beginning to realise that their children can be guaranteed extra help in the classroom only if each child has a statement. I feel sad about that. Ideally, there should be a more informal relationship between children, parents, teachers and the local education authority. The LEA should be able to supply what children need without having to go through a lengthy formal procedure.


Unfortunately, many parents now realise that they must go through that procedure to ensure that their children get the extra help which is needed.
11.15 pm
In my constituency in the past two years, there has been a vast increase in the number of children who are receiving statements. The local education authority has increased the amount of money available for children with special needs, but it has not been able to keep pace with the increased number of statements. As a result, many children have found that the learning support they receive in the classroom is being steadily diminished year by year, which puts extra pressure on local education authorities. Parents find that difficult to understand.
Local education authorities are often criticised because they take too long to make statements or they supply statements that are not meaningful documents. In that case, it is not easy for the parents to say, "The child's statement says this and you are not supplying it."
I am not defending local education authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) ably said, we are not addressing the root cause of the problem which is the lack of resources and the difficulty of local education authorities in supplying the necessary resources for children.
A real danger is that the process of statementing will gradually encompass a larger percentage of children unless definite criteria are laid down as to what constitutes special needs. Pressures do exist, and that fact needs to be addressed. The Bill does not address the problem.
The Government's answer has been to provide tribunals for parents to challenge local education authority intransigence. Although we support tribunals, there is a danger that they set up confrontational situations between parents and local education authorities. We should be looking to a spirit of co-operation. We want parents, children, teachers, local education authority officials and educational psychologists to come to some amicable agreement on what is in the child's best interests. We rehearsed these arguments in Committee. We need a pre-tribunal arbitration stage that would enable the issues to be settled in a much more informal way. We would not need to go through a legalistic and what could be an expensive procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that proposal, although it was rejected previously.
There are other problems. I was interested in the number of statements issued by my local education authority. I am speaking from memory, but I think that my local education authority had completed two thirds of its statements in the six-month procedure period. The reason why one third of the statements had not been completed did not have anything to do with the local education authority. Some of the problems related to social services and others to the district health authority.
It is difficult to understand that, although the local education authority has a duty to provide a statement within a six-month period—which seems to be reasonable and which we all applaud—statements may be held up because other agencies are involved. We need to address that matter seriously.
When we asked the Minister about the matter in Committee, we were told that there were three possible answers. One was that parents had different means of complaining if other agencies were involved. However, if it

were a national health service complaint, parents would have to complain through the procedures for complaining about health services. They would have to go to the chief executive or general manager of their local health service or hospital. If that failed, they would have to take it up with the health service ombudsman.
My district health authority takes, on average, approximately two and a half months to respond to my letters. Such a time scale would make nonsense of the NHS complaints procedure for parents trying to get a quick response from a health authority.
It might be interesting for Ministers to reflect on another problem that I came across. One parent did not want her child to be statemented. It had not occurred to her that her child was in such serious difficulties that she needed a statement. But the child's head teacher could not supply her with the resources that she required unless she had a statement. So the parent was put under great pressure to have her child statemented when she did not want that. It caused some conflict. The parent felt, rightly or wrongly, that a statement was a stigma and she did not want her child to be labelled in that way. We must take that view on board and be sensitive to parents' feelings.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Lady is putting a most interesting point. However, children have to be categorised in many ways—in terms of IQ, special need and other needs. Special needs are simply one form of need. Does the hon. Lady agree that if parents are carefully and properly counselled they will accept the statementing process, if it is suitably sensitive? Sometimes it is not, I am sorry to say. That is when problems arise.

Mrs. Campbell: My point is that it is perhaps anomalous to single out children with special needs for this treatment. I ask the House to consider whether it is always appropriate to meet those needs by a statement. Certainly in the past, when LEAs had more flexibility and perhaps more funds available, it was usually possible to provide a great deal of support for children in the classroom without their having to go through the statementing procedure. That is the main point.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has reminded me of an interview that I had with a headmaster when I was recruited to my first school more than 35 years ago. We did not have statements. We had a remedial department which had as many as seven forms and seven qualified staff. The headmaster said, "This is the most expensive department in the school, and quite right too."
Is not the challenge to the Secretary of State for Education tonight to explain how, in the circumstances of competitive performance and results of pupils which he is creating in the Bill, headmasters or headmistresses who think in that direction will be able to use their best endeavours to see that that position is maintained? Will there not be a problem of people taking action, possibly legal action, against the school or, indeed, the Secretary of State, to define what best endeavours are?

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps the Minister will take it up in his reply to the debate.
Opposition Members who feel that schools are communities which provide for a wide variety of different needs and abilities feel that as much integration as is


physically and humanly possible should be achieved. Parents who have experienced mainstream integration for their children with special educational needs often speak highly of that experience and are anxious that, if they move from one local authority to another, their child can still be integrated into a mainstream school.
Many good local education authorities have planned to integrate children into mainstream schools and, consequently, have had to make some difficult decisions about closing special schools. Making resources available in mainstream schools often means running down provisions in special schools and closing one in order to fund the other. I believe that is right, but the ability of local education authorities to make that provision and fund it sensibly will be greatly reduced by the Bill, because the Government have introduced a clause to allow special schools to opt out of local authority control.
I can envisage a good local education authority that is trying to integrate children into the mainstream sector finding that the number of children in a special school is reducing and that the only sensible educational solution is to close down the school. If the school objects to that decision, it now has the opportunity to opt out of local authority control. The Minister has given repeated assurances that he will not allow that to happen, but we all know that, in practice, it does occur and schools opt out because they wish to fight local education authority closure plans. I am worried that if they opt out, grant-maintained special schools will do their damnedest to attract as many pupils as possible and, if they are successful, they will reverse the integration process and that will have a damaging effect on the community and, ultimately, on children with special educational needs.
I have made some points. I am afraid that they may not all be related directly to the amendments under discussion, but I hope that the Government will respond to them.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I suggest that one assumption underlies all the amendments which have been tabled and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we debate and search for the best policies to benefit children with special educational needs with the minimum of political partisanship. Therefore, I take some of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) as, to some extent, badinage.
The assumption underlying the amendments, which reflects that of the Government in framing the Bill, is that there should be carefully planned and co-ordinated provision of education for children with special needs in a strategy that embraces both the grant-maintained sector and the local authority maintained sector. That is what the Government want and what we all want.
However, the Bill does not make it clear how that is to be achieved. The roles of the Funding Agency for Schools and grant-maintained schools need to be interlocked almost at every point with the role of local education authorities in relation to special educational needs. We should be able to look forward to an intimate complementarity and partnership between them. But it seems to me that the mechanisms and processes whereby this is to be achieved are not made entirely clear in the Bill. The Government assume that it will happen, and no doubt

the sensible and well intentioned people who work in special educational needs will do their best to ensure that it does.
I suspect that amendments Nos. 73 and 74 to clause 149 were tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members in a deliberately simplistic way to remove the qualification on the duty of all concerned to make appropriate provision for each child. I am much in favour of the deletion of the cliché "use their best endeavours". It is not appropriate that a Bill brought to the House by the Department of Education should contain clichés. Jargon is unavoidable, but clichés should be abhorred. However, it is not helpful to substitute for this cliché a summary insistence on perfection. How, in practice, are the powers and duties of all concerned to interlock in the best interests of children with special educational needs?
11.30 pm
In subsections (3) and (4), clause 5 requires a two-way sharing of information between the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. Clause 142(4) requires the governing body of a grant-maintained school to provide information to a local education authority in the exercise of its duties. So far so good, but the precise nature of the mutual obligations remains unclear. The responsibilities of the two sectors are properly inseparable, as the drafting of clauses 148 and 149, without amendment, indicates.
The funding agency has a duty to secure sufficient places in grant-maintained schools, including places for children with special needs who do not have a statement. As has been said, such children may constitute about 18 per cent. of the nation's school children, of whom an increasing proportion will be in grant-maintained schools as the sector grows. The funding agency must provide realistic funding to support these pupils. It must also provide capital and maintenance grants to cover, for example, the cost of physical adaptations and specialised equipment that may be necessary to enable grant-maintained schools to receive and educate children with particular disabilities.
How does my hon. Friend propose that the funding agency should be provided with the necessary expertise and be enabled to give the necessary priority to this dimension of its responsibilities? Meanwhile, the local education authority, operating in its sphere, has responsibility for children who are to be statemented. It is responsible for the process of assessment, for the establishment of the statement, for ensuring that what is specified is provided and for subsequent review and reassessment. For many children, this whole process will begin and continue within grant-maintained schools.
More broadly, local education authorities have a duty —set out in clause 147—to keep under review the whole range of provision for children with special education needs in their areas. It is clear that that duty will have to be undertaken in the closest co-ordination with others concerned. Obviously, in the case of the grant-maintained sector, it is crucial that it be carried out in conjunction with health authorities, to which local education authorities and schools look for the provision of speech therapy and physiotherapy. The interests of far too many children have been lost in the gap between the responsibilities of LEAs and those of health authorities. I should have liked to see


that aspect of co-ordination more firmly secured in this legislation. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was right to draw attention to this issue.
Local education authorities' reviews of provision for special educational needs should also be undertaken in close relationship with section 19 reviews under the Children Act. Department of Education circular 791 calls for clear and coherent authoritywide policies for special educational needs and for monitoring the performance of schools and support services. These amendments, in their various ways, seek to secure the achievement of this objective. I do not say that they all do so satisfactorily, but that, I think, is the Government's aim.
PagAt all points, therefore, co-ordination is assumed, but it remains unclear—to me at any rate—how local education authorities are empowered to achieve it. Clause 149(3) sets out a duty to promote integration. Amendment 42 to clause 148 bears on that issue. I am glad that the Government have given renewed impetus to integration, but integration must be carried forward at a pace and in a manner that is in the interest of the child.
That implies a full knowledge on the part of LEAs of the circumstances and nature of provision in all schools, including grant-maintained schools, and close cooperation between them. That will certainly be the wish of professionals, but what powers will the LEA have in the event that professionals in the grant-maintained sector disagree with the judgment of professionals in the LEA sector?
Both sectors have a vital interest in the training and professional development of teachers. With more children with special needs being educated in mainstream schools and with our rising aspirations for children with special educational needs expressed in the national curriculum, there is an immense task for initial teacher training and for the in-service professional education of teachers.
Every teacher will need at least a competence in the education of children with special needs, and every school will need special needs co-ordinators and possibly other staff trained to increasingly high expertise in the highly diverse field of special educational needs. All of that will need systematic organisation and monitoring, and I am not clear from the Bill how responsibility for that will be apportioned.
The Funding Agency for Schools and the grant-maintained sector will have to work with LEAs to secure a rational and sufficiently extensive overall pattern of special needs provision. Every school will need to be able to cope with the most common special needs. No school should be able to shirk that responsibility, which is found enriching by schools that embrace it positively, as most do.
In the middle range of needs, there will have to be carefully planned, differentiated provision involving specialist support staff and specialist units in the grant-maintained and LEA sectors. Then there will, certainly for the foreseeable future, need to be special schools. The Bill envisages that they may be grant-maintained schools, although overall responsibility to secure the range of provision will rest with the LEA. For rare and intensely special needs, there will have to be highly specialised provision at regional or national level.
In that context, and bearing in mind amendment 51, I too am puzzled that the Government have not proposed to entitle parents to express a preference for their child to be placed at a non-maintained special school. Many of those schools, centres of excellence, must be considered to be an

indispensable part of the overall system. It is the duty of the LEA to provide suitable provision to meet the particular needs of the child, and placement at a non-maintained special school will, in particular cases, be appropriate.
We, and LEAs, must have regard for the efficient use of resources in that incantation familiar from the 1981 Act and, properly, reproduced in the Bill. But if that objective is to be achieved, and if the formula is not to mean merely rationing and disappointment, the most careful joint planning and co-ordination will be essential. As the hon. Member for Cambridge suggested, we must avert the increasing tendency for more statements to be sought, because that does not tend to the efficient use of resources.
So the lines of responsibility must be clear. The principal message of the Audit Commission and HMI in getting in on the act was the need for clearer definition of objectives and responsibilities and for improved accountability in the special needs sphere. The Audit Commission and HMI saw the LEA as the champion of the pupil with special educational needs, but how are LEAs to fulfil that role in relation to the Funding Agency for Schools and the grant-maintained sector?
That is what the group of amendments variously seeks to address, and no doubt the code of practice which is adumbrated in clause 145 will clarify a great deal. But I should be grateful if the Minister would give some foretaste of it and explain how he envisages the necessary close co-ordination between the sectors being achieved.

Mr. Bowis: One should begin speaking in any debate on special educational needs by paying tribute to the achievements of Conservative Administrations, who have made giant strides, as is recognised by the professionals who deal with children with those needs. We are light years on from the generation to which the hon. Member For Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred, and he recognises the progress that has been made.
It is against that background that we are now looking to tighten regulations, take them a bit further and move them on. That is what this Bill does, in terms of the tribunal, speeding up statementing, and so on. The next stage may well be, as I have hinted to my right hon. Friend in the past, to look at ways in which the funding process for the achievement of statementing by local education authorities might be assisted by some mandatory award system which would take away any question mark over the determination of LEAs to proceed and remove any disincentive for them to do so on grounds of cost.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I think that, like me, he is looking forward to the Minister's response.
When we reached this stage in the Committee, dealing with schedule 9, it was one of the moments when the Committee came together across the divide of politics. I think that that is recognised by the Hansard record, which refers to the amendment being proposed by "Mr. Win Forth". I can only suggest that that was a recognition that my hon. Friend was moving fast towards all-party agreement on this.
More seriously, the debate that we had then was resisted by my hon. Friend on the grounds that the amendment was a little too wide and because of the precedent that he saw being set. I am grateful to my hon.


Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) for tabling his amendment and indeed to our colleagues for supporting him. He put a better way of achieving this to the House and to Ministers. The point that he made about these being charitable schools which depend almost exclusively for their fee funding on placements with the LEAs is an important one.
My hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee that he would ponder on that and, I think he said, come back another day. I do not know whether this is that other day, but perhaps we can be thinking in terms of finding a way of securing the future of these schools and, more important, securing the right education for the children about whom we are talking. I have had too many cases in which the LEA eventually agrees to the placing of a child in such a charitable school only after a great deal of effort, campaigning and pressure from me and others. We need to shift the balance a little towards parental choice, if we can.
I have the case of a child now going to the Department on appeal on the ground that the LEA believes that there is an adequate school for deaf children in the area maintained by the borough, but the parents believe that there is too much emphasis on signing in that school and feel very strongly that there should be an alternative school available. However, the only alternative is in the same category.
I do not know whether we can put it into the Bill in the form that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is seeking by giving the parents the right to name a school and the LEA the right to decide whether that naming is reasonable. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response, and I ask him to go on pondering, as he promised he would, until we can ensure that such children have the education that we know they need.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I do not wish to detain the House for long this evening, but if we are to achieve a limited number of statements and extra teaching for those with special educational needs within our schools, we will have to do at least two things.
One is to change the training within our teacher training establishments so that teachers are trained to recognise and diagnose special educational needs at a very early age. When that diagnosis has taken place, they must know what to do about it and how to teach those children. They must have the modest additional resources in terms of teacher time within each school to give that necessary extra attention and intensive teaching.
That will need additional money, but it could and should be encompassed within the budget for special educational needs. I fear that the worst cases—the statemented cases—will attract all the resources, and leave little to provide the extra teaching time for the 14 to 15 per cent. of the school population who will need it if they are to achieve their natural ambitions, and if their natural ability is to be realised.
A revolution will be required in our teacher training colleges, and a change in the way in which education authorities and the Department of Education use the money necessary for special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will indeed ponder those matters, and will ensure that our teachers know how to teach, and how to teach children to read, using phonetic and other methods, as that is what those children desperately need and have

been denied by the avant garde experimental teaching methods so prevalent in our teacher training colleges and schools in recent years.

Mr. Forth: In the time left to me, I shall endeavour to deal as fully as I can with the amendments that have been mentioned in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to cover most of the issues raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) claimed amendments Nos. 73 and 74 were designed to strengthen the position of children with special educational needs who may not have a statement of their needs. In trying to persuade the House that the amendments are unnecessary, I remind hon. Members that we amended the Bill in Committee to benefit all pupils with special needs, but particularly those without statements. To do so, we introduced two new policies: a requirement on governors to publish and report to parents on their schools' policies for all their pupils with special educational needs, with or without statements; and an explicit provision for local education authorities to continue to offer special educational needs support services to all children with SEN in maintained schools—whether grant-maintained or local education authority schools—who wished to use them. The amendments introducing those policies are now clauses 149(4) and 150 of the Bill.
An underlying principle of the Education Act 1981 was that the school should meet the great majority of the special needs of its pupils, with support as necessary from the authority. The introduction of local management of schools and self-governing, grant-maintained status means that schools are now increasingly autonomous. But increased autonomy means increased responsibility towards pupils with special needs and increased accountability towards their parents. The school has the direct influence, constant contact with, and the prime responsibility for all its pupils, and the school is directly accountable to parents.
I believe that we have strengthened the duties on governors in clause 149 to "use their best endeavours"—a phrase which has been repeated over and over again in the debate—to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs. We want all school governors to think carefully about the provision that their schools make for pupils, and that is why we tabled an amendment to the clause.
Our amendment—clause 149(4)—provides for a school's annual report to parents to include information about the school's policies for pupils with SEN. The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the information to be included. The annual reports are required of LEA governors, under section 30 of the Education Act 1986, and of grant-maintained school governors under paragraph 8 of schedule 6 to the Bill.
The Secretary of State will be able to prescribe the areas that governors' policy statements should cover, and I envisage that the statements will be very comprehensive. The Secretary of State will use existing powers, under section 8 of the 1980 Act and clause 137(1) of the Bill, to require school governors to publish information about their policies for pupils with SEN.
We shall consult on the issues that schools' policies should address, but I should like to give the House some


idea of what we have in mind. A school's policy might cover basic information that parents might want, such as the name of any SEN co-ordinator—that was mentioned during the debate—the number of pupils with special needs in the school, admissions arrangements and any SEN specialism for which the school caters.
The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) should note that the admissions arrangements and other matters, including the policies I have outlined, would cover special units that were part of a school, as well as the school itself. For that purpose, units would be regarded as an integral part of the school.
A school's policy might cover equipment and building adaptations, physical access for the disabled, teachers with specialist SEN qualifications and staff training provision. The policy might then set out the school's objectives for its pupils with special needs, including its arrangements for identification of such pupils. The policy statement might set out the school's recording and evaluation procedures, and the indicators which it uses to monitor the implementation of its policy. It might then specify how it meets those objectives through its arrangements for access to the national curriculum for special needs pupils, use made of support teachers, differentiated teaching practices, policy on short or part-time withdrawal, information on individual curriculum programmes and pupil groupings.
Finally, it might be sensible if the policy set out arrangements with bodies and agencies outside the school. The policy might state what arrangements the school had with other special or ordinary schools and with the local health and social services. It might also set out its policy for obtaining SEN support services, either from the LEA or other sources.
The degree of detail and comprehensiveness that I have outlined might reassure many of those who have spoken in the debate. It might go some way to providing a reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), because a school's policy might identify the role of that school, as defined by it, and the way in which it would be required to work with LEAs.
On amendment No. 50, I have already stressed the Government's commitment to meeting the needs of all children with special needs. We recognise, however, that a proportion of them will require formal assessment of their educational needs and, therefore, a statutory statement of SEN. In addressing their needs in the Bill, one of our major priorities has, again, been to involve their parents as active partners in the whole process of determining their children's education. We are doing that by creating extended rights for parents, setting up an independent appeals mechanism and establishing a code of practice, which was referred to frequently in Committee and mentioned again tonight. That code of practice will govern LEAs' exercise of their functions under clause 155.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) tabled amendment No. 50 and said that he wanted to make LEAs justify, on a child's statement, their decision to specify a special school. The LEAs would not be similarly required to justify naming an ordinary school and I believe that the amendment is unnecessary, because the Government believe that LEAs should always discuss with parents all aspects of a statement. Those discussions

should include the name of the appropriate school, be it special school or ordinary. We are confident that the Bill makes full provision to that effect.
The naming of a school is the final stage in writing a statement, and I believe that that is right. Surely there is little point in assessing needs and considering provision if the school has already been decided. The logical flow of the statement leads to naming the appropriate school, so the specification of needs and provision should justify that very naming.
Of course, the LEA must explain its decisions to parents. Indeed, parents should have been closely involved throughout the process of assessing the child and drafting the statement. We have already issued clear advice to this effect. Our circular 22/89 states:
The relations between professional advisers and parents during the process of assessment are of crucial importance. Parents should be encouraged to feel that they are partners in this process".
I hope that the House is assured that the further guidance that we shall issue under the Bill will underline the importance of that partnership. Beyond that, the Bill gives parents an important new right—to state a preference for their child's school. The statement will go to parents in draft form. They will have explicit rights to make representations to the LEA and to hold meetings with it. I believe that, therefore, there will be ample opportunity for parents and the authority to discuss the name of the school which should appear on the statement. When parents state a preference, LEAs will be bound to abide by that preference, so long as certain reasonable conditions are met. In that respect, the Bill makes fully adequate provision for parents to express their views and for authorities to explain their thinking. At the end of that process, it is for the LEA to decide which school should be named and to arrange the provision. But the LEA cannot, in fulfilling its duties, ignore—even if it does not always meet—the wishes of parents. Moreover, authorities know that they cannot act arbitrarily in naming a school. Their actions will be subject to scrutiny by the new SEN tribunal set up under the Bill. They must, under the Bill, tell parents of their rights of appeal to that tribunal. If a case goes to appeal, the LEA will have to justify itself before the tribunal, which will have the power to overturn an LEA's decision and to instruct that LEA to name the school of the parent's choice.
I want to talk about amendment No. 51, because I know of the interest in the subject, which was so eloquently raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The amendment refers to the parents' rights, under the Bill, to influence an authority's decision on which school to name on the child's statement of special educational needs.
I am not persuaded of the need for the amendment, and I shall explain why. The Government fully recognise the high quality of specialised provision offered by many non-maintained special schools and other institutions outside the maintained sector. I am confident that the Bill does not jeopardise their future—many people have expressed a fear that it will—as long as they continue to provide the best education at the most reasonable cost, as I believe that they do. We expect LEAs to take into account the quality and cost effectiveness of such schools when considering the placement of a child.
Our intention in paragraph 3(1) of schedule 9 is to extend to parents of children with statements of special


educational needs the same right that the Education Act 1980 gave to other parents. That is the right to express a preference for the maintained school that their child should attend. If hon. Members consider the nature of non-maintained special schools, they will see why it might not be appropriate to include them in the provision. A non-maintained special school is a school not maintained by a local education authority, but which is approved by the Secretary of State as a special school—currently under section 9(5) of the Education Act 1944. There are at present 81 such schools, many of them run by major charities, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Barnardos and other such organisations.
Those schools are clearly distinct from those in the maintained sector. They are not subject to closure or alteration by local education authorities; nor will the Funding Agency for Schools have any jurisdiction over them. They exist in a market, and will continue to do so by offering what that market wants. They have no need to be propped up by specific legislative provision of the sort envisaged by the amendment. Moreover, if non-maintained special schools were brought within the scope of the provision, there would be a serious question about where to draw the line.
Independent schools might take the view that they, too, should be included. Some hon. Members mentioned that possibility. In law, there is no such thing as an independent special school, but there are independent schools that may be approved to cater for children with special educational needs. There are more than 100 of those, and yet more that take in individual statemented children on the basis of specific approvals obtained by LEAs from the Secretary of State. Such schools do not even have to be "special" in character. They may be ordinary independent schools that happen to be able to offer provision for a particular disability. It would be hard to justify excluding any independent schools that had the appropriate approvals from an extension of the "parental preference" provision which took in the non-maintained sector. If all independent schools were given an incentive to try and get on the bandwagon, there would be a real danger of matters getting out of hand.
However, we recognise that some parents may feel strongly that their child should be placed outside the maintained sector in, for example, a non-maintained special school. Let me spell out what the Bill provides for such parents. Instead of expressing a preference under paragraph 3 of schedule 9, the parents will make representations under paragraph 4(1)(a). In response to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, may I say that parents will do so at the draft statement stage—at the same stage of the proceeding at which they would be able to exercise their rights under paragraph 3 of schedule 9. Paragraph 4(1)(a) provides for parents to make representations to the LEA about the content of their child's statement—including making a case for placement in a non-maintained special school, independent school or any other institution that they may consider appropriate for their child. The LEA will then be under a duty, as in paragraph 5(1) of schedule 9, to consider all such representations before finalising the statement. It will have to do so against the background of its statutory duties to determine and arrange appropriate special educational

provision for the child. The LEA will be fully aware that if it cannot justify its decision not to name the non-maintained special school, the parent may, under clause 157, challenge the LEA's decision and appeal to the independent tribunal, which would then have the power to direct the LEA to place the child in a school outside the maintained sector.
We have achieved a balance between recognising the special independent nature of such schools and their special privileges, which I briefly described, while allowing the full mechanisms available in the Bill, including those that I outlined, which I believe will give full rights to parents and full protection to non-maintained special schools. For those reasons, I am not persuaded that we should accept the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends. I hope that on reflection—

It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution [12 March] put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on all remaining amendments up to the end of clause 195 moved by a member of the Government.

Clause 150

PROVISION OF SEN ASSISTANCE

Amendment made: No. 126, in page 90, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) The terms on which goods or services are supplied by local education authorities to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools under this section may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, include such terms as to payment as may be prescribed'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Schedule 9

MAKING AND MAINTENANCE OF STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION I55

Amendment made: No. 139, in page 182, line 35, leave out from 'after' to end of line 40 and insert—

'(i) a request under this paragraph,
(ii) the service of a copy of the statement under paragraph 6 above,
(iii) if the statement has been amended, the date when notice of the amendment is given under paragraph 10(3)(b) below, or
(iv) if the parent has appealed to the Tribunal under section 157 of this Act or this paragraph, the date when the appeal is concluded,

whichever is the later'.—[ Mr. Forth.]

Schedule 10

GOVERNMENT AND CONDUCT OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 140, in page 187, leave out lines 35 to 41 and insert—
'( ) there is a report of an inspection of the school in which the person who made it expressed the opinion that special measures were required to be taken in relation to the school,
( ) either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,
( ) if any registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate has made a later report of an inspection of the school under Chapter I of Part V of this Act, he


did not express the opinion in the report that special measures were not required to be taken in relation to the school, and
( ) the Secretary of State has received a statement prepared under section 193 of this Act or the period allowed by subsection (2) of that section for the preparation of such a statement has expired;
and expressions used in this sub-paragraph and in that Part have the same meaning as in that Pare.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 171

MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOL BECOMING GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 102, line 21, leave out 'such date as may be specified in the proposals' and insert 'the date of approval'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 178

SPECIFICATION OF SCHOOLS IN NOTICES UNDER SECTION 177(2)

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 107, line 29, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the school, that authority.'.

No. 132, in page 107, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the school, that authority.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Gordon McMaster be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. John Gunnell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

British Rail Maintenance Ltd. (Eastleigh)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of fundamental concern to my constituency. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to reply to the debate, because I know that he has spent a very arduous day in the Committee considering the Railways Bill.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport my thanks for the visit that he paid to the railway maintenance yard at Eastleigh last September. I know that he is very aware of the problems that the works faces, and I am appreciative of the help that my hon. Friend has already given.
John Arlott, the well-known cricket commentator and Hampshire personality, was asked 30 years ago to comment on Eastleigh. His reply was a bit double-edged, but I will repeat it:
Anyone who admires Eastleigh seems to me like the character evoked by a modern poet—
'As fond as a plain woman's lovers
Of charms that the world does not see.'
But Eastleigh has a heart, a huge fiery, steam-pulsed, hammer-beating heart.
The heart of Eastleigh is its railway maintenance works, which is the subject of this debate.
Since 1891, when the London and South-Western railway—an efficient and wisely managed private company —decided to bring its wagon and carriage works from south London to Eastleigh, the works has been the heart of the town. That is particularly so since 1909, when the company decided to move the locomotive building works there also.
Today, 1,400 of my constituents are employed at the Eastleigh works, and hundreds more elsewhere on the railways. The works is still the biggest employer in the town. Hundreds more—employees' families, shopkeepers and businesses—depend on the works for their livelihood or welfare. It is vital to my constituency that British Rail Maintenance Ltd. continues as a prosperous and successful employer.
BRML is not some antiquated nationalised industry but a well-run and efficient nationalised industry. It has a first-class record. Every year for the past five years the works has been able, because of its efficiency, to reduce its charges to the railway by 2·5 per cent. It is flexible, and because its work force has a wide range of skills, the works can adapt in times of crisis. Perhaps the most striking example of that happened two years ago, when thousands of passengers were delayed by the famous wrong type of snow. That situation was dealt with: they got the right kind of maintenance at Eastleigh. The work force worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and managed to repair all the electric motors that had been damaged; very soon, trains were back in service. Had it not been for the large, flexible and skilled work force at Eastleigh, that might not have been possible. The work is done with increasing rapidity. Work on the light-maintenance trains can be turned around within three days.
Eastleigh is also remarkable for the good relations between management and work force. I am glad to say that representatives of both are here tonight to listen to the debate.
Despite that record of achievement, jobs—alas—are at risk in the rail maintenance yards. There are two reasons for that. First, the recession has meant a reduction in the use of trains on the network, and therefore a reduced need for maintenance; secondly—rather ironically—the Government's investment programme means that new rolling stock is coming on stream which requires less maintenance. For example, the new trains with sliding doors need much less maintenance than the old slam-door trains. There is a serious risk that many BRML workers will lose their jobs in the years ahead, whatever happens as a result of privatisation.
I sought the opportunity to speak tonight, before the Government have made any decisions about privatisation as it affects the maintenance sector, to ensure that they are aware of the concern that is felt. It is precisely because jobs are at risk and the welfare of my constituency is threatened that I hope the Government will consider very seriously, before making any decisions on privatisation, the effect on the work force and my constituents.
The company recently announced that it had asked the management consultants McKinsey and Co. to establish the best solutions and the best way forward. I welcome that decision: McKinsey is a first-rate company, and I think that its advice could be most helpful. I note from its remit, however, that it has been asked to consider not only the best form of maintenance and what is best for the railways, but what is best for the employees. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that McKinsey will consider the employees' concerns, and will be prepared to meet the trade unions before making its recommendations.
I am principally concerned about the possible effects of the general privatisation of the network on railway maintenance. If the new franchisees are simply given terms of five, six or seven years to run the railways, they will naturally be tempted to cut corners—not to carry out proper maintenance, and to allow longer periods to elapse between maintenance sessions. That would not only be bad for the railways and for passengers; clearly, it would be extremely disadvantageous for my constituents who work for BRML.
I was very encouraged by a letter that my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me last week in which he said that one option being considered by the Government was a special relationship between BRML and the new company set up to own the rolling stock—a company that would obviously have an interest in maintaining the quality of rolling stock, and would not be tempted to cut corners. I hope that the Government will explore that option further, with the aim of ensuring that corners are not cut in maintenance, and that the interests of BRML's employees in Eastleigh are taken fully into account.
I want to raise a number of points that are concerning my constituents and those who work at BRML; I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer them. The first relates to the time scale. For three or four years, those who work at BRML have been in suspense: they have not known what their future is. They have been worried about job losses; they do not know whether BRML will remain a separate company, or whether it will be privatised. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea when a decision will be made so that those workers will know their future?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that BRML in Eastleigh will probably continue to be the main centre for the long-term maintenance of Southern region trains, whoever owns or runs them?
Thirdly, will he deal with an issue that troubles many of my constituents—the future of their pensions? That concerns both those who work on the railways now and the thousands who have retired. Last Saturday, I held a meeting in my constituency to discuss the issue: it was attended by 300 or 400 pensioners, who were extremely concerned about some of the misleading newspaper reports that they had read, implying that the Government might do a Maxwell and filch the pension fund. I should like an assurance not only that the value of pensions will be maintained but that pensioners, especially BRML pensioners, will in no way be disadvantaged by privatisation. They have paid their contributions and are entitled to the full pensions which they have earned during their working lives.
If the Government decide to privatise BRML, I should like to put a number of points on the record. Will the Government make it their objective to ensure that there is a level playing field? There has been considerable concern in recent months because some of the electric traction motors which are overhauled at Eastleigh have been put out to tender without BRML having a chance to put in a bid. There should be a level playing field, but there is concern that some work might go to other depots. My constituents accept that the railway demands the best price, service and conditions, but they want to be reassured that they will have the benefit of competing on equal terms with other companies and depots which may want to do the work.
If privatisation occurs, will the Minister make every effort to ensure that any new company is well managed and that some of the lessons of what went wrong at British Rail Engineering Ltd. are learnt before new arrangements are made for BRML?
Privatisation will clearly bring benefits to the railway —as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I support privatization—but there will also be costs. I am concerned to ensure that those costs do not fall disproportionately on my constituents. In that respect, I should like those who work at BRML to gain some clear benefits if it is privatised. Would it be possible to have a shareholding scheme so that if the company prospers those who work there reap the benefit instead of it going to an outside organisation which merely bought it?
I have in mind the favourable experience of another company in my constituency, the shipbuilders Vosper Thornycroft, which was successfully privatised 10 years ago. It has doubled its productivity and has the largest order book in its history. It is one of the few defence firms in the south of England which is recruiting workers. It has been able to offer its employees shares in the company— about half have accepted—so they have drawn a direct benefit from the company's success. With the same thought in mind, would it be possible to expand the work for which BRML can bid? At the moment it is limited to trains on the Southern region. Could it hid for work elsewhere on the railway network or possibly for work in other sectors? The Minister may know that during the war the Eastleigh works produced bomb trolleys and worked on assault craft and a variety of other wartime needs. It is flexible and could do work for other industries.
Will the Minister offer some words of encouragement and assurance to my constituents? They are extremely worried about what will happen to their jobs. Unemployment in Eastleigh has traditionally been very low, but it has almost tripled in the past two years. The town of Eastleigh is very dependent on the railways. There is an air of uncertainty. We should be most grateful if the Minister could offer assurances that will enable my constituents and those who work at BRML to believe that they have a sound future.
I support the Government's privatisation programme because I believe that it will lead to greater use of the railways, which is what my constituents want. If any change to BRML can be managed in such a way that it benefits not only the railways but the employees, it will help the constituents of the railway town that I am proud to represent.

Mr. John Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this important debate. Many of my constituents work at British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and will also be listening carefully to the answers that the Minister will give. I shall be brief because I am as keen as anyone to hear the answers to the specific questions that have been asked.
I emphasise two points of particular importance. First, BRML is a public asset. Whether the Government intend to keep it in the public sector or move it to the private sector, it is in the public interest to ensure that it has a sound future. It is therefore in the public interest to ensure that no short-term actions are taken, or are allowed to be taken, which undermine BRML's ability to meet the heavy engineering needs of the railway network in the south-east and nationally.
How British Rail is privatised, if the Government persist in their intention to privatise it, and the links between the way it is privatised and the maintenance operations are critical to BRML's future.
I am one of those who believe that BRML's future will not be bright if it is left as an isolated unit, not integrated into the rest of the rail network, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that BRML will not be left on its own to sink but will be linked in a positive way to the franchise operators—and ideally to those who will be operating services in the south-east—or to Railtrack, or to the leasing company that was referred to earlier.
I also hope that the Minister can give an assurance that BRML's core long-term viability will not be undermined by allowing light maintenance depots to asset-strip work which may be short term and profitable but which could end up by putting BRML out of business and denying the railway network the skills and expertise that exist at that important depot.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for conveying his good wishes to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who, sadly, cannot be with us. I know that one

of the things that my hon. Friend the Minister would have wanted to say is that we and our colleagues in the Department have been impressed by the consistent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has maintained his interest in the railworks in Eastleigh and has assiduously and constantly pressed us for the sort of assurance that he hopes to obtain from me this evening. The evidence for that is his consistent efforts to secure this Adjournment debate.
I am happy to join my hon. Friend's name with that of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who asked to intervene on behalf of his constituents. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who I know is also keenly interested in the future of the railways in Great Britain, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, are also here.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, Eastleigh has a proud railway tradition. The locomotive works there was opened on the present site, as my hon. Friend doubtless knows, in 1910, for construction and repair of London and South-Western Railway locomotives. Today the works handles repairs and modifications to BR's fleet of multiple units and locomotives, especially the Network SouthEast stock. The aim of BRML is to achieve rapid turn-round times and get vehicles back into service quickly.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Public Transport visited Eastleigh with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh last September, he was impressed by the skills and adaptability of the BRML work force and, as my hon. Friend noted, the willingness of the work force to work constructively with management in producing a first-class product.
Eastleigh works has recently gained its British Standard quality certificate of which it can be justifiably proud. Over the years the Eastleigh work force has proved that it is capable of tackling any task that comes its way, displaying craftsmanship and achieving customer satisfaction of a very high order. I am sure that its good record will serve it well in the future. My hon. Friend is entirely right to want to clarify the future of all four of the BRML works as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend will know that, following the sale of BREL, the Eastleigh, Glasgow, Doncaster and Wolverton works became part of a new BR subsidiary—which is known as British Rail Maintenance Limited, and is responsible for heavy maintenance work for British Rail. That followed the board's decision that the design and supply of new traction and rolling stock should be competitively sourced from private manufacturers, with maintenance being undertaken in BR workshops on the basis of a component exchange system. That maintenance work is not, at present, put out to competitive tender, although components removed in BR workshops are overhauled externally following competitive tendering.
The Government's policy is that BR should widen private sector involvement in maintenance. We are still considering the options for BRML depots, but have made it clear that we see benefits in involving the private sector in the heavy repair work currently carried out by BRML. Private contractors do, of course, already carry out some heavier repair and refurbishment work for BR.
A number of options for the future of BRML are under consideration. One option would be to sell off BRML, either as a whole or by major individual depots, through


trade sales or through management-led employee buy-outs. BR and other rail operators would then contract for heavy maintenance. Although the outright sale of BRML has attractions, it might pose serious competition problems. Where major overhauls and repairs are concerned, the monopoly power of an individual depot would be less, provided that the individual works were distributed among different owners so that an effective monopoly was not established. But even if the elements were sold separately, it might be difficult or too expensive for a railway operator to use other than the nearest depot, particularly in the case of the electric third rail network.
A second option might be to transfer individual depots to that part of the railway which is their major customer. That might make sense in the case of the BRML Glasgow works and the ScotRail franchisee. But it might be less appropriate in the case of Eastleigh, given its wide role in servicing Network SouthEast stock south of the Thames, and the fact that more than one franchisee would be involved.
Many franchisees may, of course, want to lease their rolling stock. My hon. Friend made that point, and I shall return to it in a moment. Some may wish to do so through a simple finance lease so that the franchisee does his own maintenance. Others may wish to concentrate their efforts purely on marketing. For them, rolling stock lessors might offer rolling stock on a fully maintained basis, recovering their costs through rolling stock leasing charges. The lessor in turn could either contract out maintenance or supply it from in-house resources. Either route could make use of the valuable expertise and experience which currently resides in BRML. Some combination of those three options may prove appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Above all, we must retain flexibility to meet the emerging requirements of future operators.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the sort of relationship that might exist in future between BRML and a publicly owned company established for the purpose of leasing railway stock. Certainly that would avoid the risk, if their were to be a risk, of short cutting by any individual franchisee on long-term maintenance, the effect of which might be beyond the immediate terms of the initial franchise.
As my hon. Friend says, British Rail has appointed McKinsey as consultants to advise on the future of BRML and the Level 5 group of depots. I understand that the trades unions have been advised by BR of the terms of reference for the work. The remit is to consider what options exist in the light of the Government's emerging plans for BR privatisation and to report to BR in the spring. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference for the McKinsey study specifically require the study to have regard to the interests of employees of BRML and of the Level 5 group of depots. We look forward to receiving the board's proposals for the future of its heavy maintenance depots. In that context, I must add that it would be inconceivable, to my mind, if in the course of its investigation and the preparation of the report McKinsey were not formally to meet the trade unions as part of that process.
I recognise that uncertainty about the future is causing anxiety among BRML workers. We will make an announcement as quickly as we can. Meanwhile, we are

giving further consideration to the relationship between rolling stock, franchising and access to maintenance facilities. The need to secure adequate maintenance facilities will be an important factor for franchisees, and could be a barrier to entry for new operators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen asked several other specific questions which I shall attempt to answer in the time available. My hon. Friend asked that if privatisation took place there should be clear benefits for employees —such as, employee shareholding schemes and the opportunity to bid for a wider range of work. We shall certainly encourage employees to take a direct stake in the future of a franchised or privatised business in which they work. My hon. Friend will know that the BREL sale, for example, included an employee shareholding scheme. I am also pleased to confirm that a privatised BRML would have the opportunity to bid for a wider range of work. It would compete in the private sector on a level playing field.
BREL's experience demonstrates the greater repair opportunities that will be available following privatisation. For example, although British Rail and London Underground Ltd. remain the major customers, BREL —which is now ABB Transportation—has won significant contracts from various industrial sectors, including defence, utilities, the construction industry and transport operators. That sort of widening of the customer base must be beneficial to a company and its employees.
I should like to say a few words about the level playing field to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred. I understand that the BREL sale agreement contains legal limitations on what BR repairers can bid for. Certainly, that is an issue which would need to be addressed by BR before any sale of BRML. If Eastleigh were transferred to the private sector, the intention would be that it would compete fairly on a level playing field with other companies in the private sector. It will be important to ensure that franchisees and any rolling stock leasing companies have access to the full range of maintenance facilities.
My hon. Friend wanted an assurance that a privatised BRML would have top-quality management in order to take it forward. I am sure that he will agree with me that one of the benefits of privatisation is that railway management will be more free to get on with what it considers are priorities.
Obviously, the terms and conditions of the sale will be a matter for British Rail. The Secretary of State's role in that context is to give formal consent to the sale. The terms on which the sale will be offered make it clear that there would certainly be top-quality management available to BRML in a privatised form.
I shall spend a moment on the important matter of pensions which my hon. Friend raised. I regret that an emotive issue of such crucial importance has affected many thousands of people who are getting on in years and who are, understandably, worried, especially in the wake of the absolutely scandalous treatment of the employees belonging to pension funds in the control of the late Mr. Maxwell. It is quite reprehensible that pensioners in that circumstance should be worried by the sort of stories which have been going around suggesting that the Government might employ the technique ascribed to the late Mr. Maxwell when dealing with pensioners.
Let me make one thing clear. We accepted the rail unions' suggestion that a joint industry pension scheme


should succeed the present BR schemes after privatisation. We made it clear that the joint industry scheme will offer pension benefits which are "no less favourable" than the BR scheme for the staff transferring. We made it clear that successor employers who choose to leave the joint industry scheme will be required to make alternative arrangements which are "no less favourable" to meet that criterion.
Far from there being any intention to plunder the assets of the BR scheme, we have given two clear options to the trustees of the scheme as to how they want to see the future management of pensions for present and future BR pensioners. I give my hon. Friend an assurance which I am sure he accepts. The Government are not the slightest bit interested in making political capital out of this at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society—the elderly who have genuine concerns about such issues and who are, understandably, concerned when they read some of the irresponsible reporting in the newspapers.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I have only three minutes, but, as I have dealt with all except one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised, I shall be delighted to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he will be quick.

Mr. Wilson: I shall be extremely quick. We could solve a lot of people's worries if the Minister would give us an assurance that £4.25 billion will not be transferred from the British Rail pension fund to the Treasury under any circumstances.

Mr. Norris: This is my hon. Friend's debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the traditions of the House. He knows that I cannot digress into the issue that he raises except to say that he is aware that the Government made two clear options available to the

trustees of the BR pension scheme. One involves the Government guaranteeing the payment of pensions, and thus taking over the assets of the scheme. The other involves the trustees determining a private arrangement which may well result in the pension scheme performing as well or perhaps even better. It has performed extremely well in the past.
I give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal assurance that if the BR pension scheme trustees choose the latter course, the Government will respect that course and, indeed, urge it on the pensioners. It is important that the pensioners should listen to independent financial advice and take only the best quality advice available to them on the subject. I know that it is just as important to pensioners at Eastleigh as to pensioners everywhere else in the railway system.
Perhaps the most important point is that we are confident that, following BR privatisation, Eastleigh will be required to continue to use the well-established and extremely well-respected facilities at Eastleigh. That will make eminently good economic sense for operators in southern England—both franchisees and the residual BR. To train new staff to carry out maintenance functions is likely to be neither practicable nor economical in the required time scale. I am sure that the simple logic of that is the reassurance that the work force at BRML at Eastleigh seek. I am certain that successor companies and contractors will look for and require the considerable skills of the present work force.
I hope that in the time available I have managed to cover all the points that my hon. Friend raised. I assure him that if there are any other points on which he seeks further clarification I or my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be happy to write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.